Catholic - Orthodox Dialog

[Katholikos]

Reza, I just read Mateo's post. Please tell me again about how unified the Orthodox Churches are?????

Come home to Rome and let Benedict XVI settle your disputes with one another.

Likos

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1266454' date='May 6 2007, 08:53 PM']Reza,

I didn't see the papal quote you were referring to. Please let me know whether you were referring to a particular quote.[/quote]

No, I was referencing a different quote [on a different topic], in which documents were signed between hitler's regime [the german gov] and the Roman Catholic Church. Now I'm not saying that the Roman Church went along with hitler [that's a different discussion] but saying that just because the Roman Catholic Church signed a document at one point with the german gov., doesn't mean that they are endorsing everything that the german gov. has done or is going to do... same goes for His Holiness Pope Shenouda III signing a document for unity and peace with the Roman Catholic Church, it doesn't mean that he acknowledges the Roman Catholic Pope's Supremacy [and I definately never quoted anything suggesting such], but that his desire is for one day... for there to be unity... as His Holiness rejected joining the Roman Catholic Church with the simple phrase, "We love you", in which His Holiness Pope John Paul II replied with, "we love you too".

[quote]My quote is a taken directly from your post. It's not from any article. My claim is no more than you already have admitted, so I don't know what you would like me to prove.[/quote]Sorry but you must have taken it out of context, as I'd never given "supportive evidence" that suggests that His Holiness Pope Shenouda III [or any other Coptic Patriarch for the matter] believes in or has acknowledged a "supremacy of rome" doctrinal stance or agenda. As a matter of fact, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III has written numerous articles [and books] stating why Copts don't follow Supremacy of Rome doctrine and where Rome is wrong.

[quote]The Eastern Orthodox Church includes a member church in their communion which claims the See of Alexandria for itself. Specifically, I'm referring to the Orthodox Church in Alexandria:
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orthodox_Church_of_Alexandria"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orthodo...h_of_Alexandria[/url][/quote]

That's a very poor source to be quoting, particularly that particular article that has a severely lack of evidence to "prove" a single thing, except that someone has intentions of decieving and claiming something that they don't have rights to... It's an undeniable fact [which your own Patriarch has admitted on numerous occasions] that the See of St. Mark belongs to the Coptic Orthodox Church and that it was the first rite to ever exist in that area, and possess ever element that proves such [all the Saints relics, and artifacts].

[quote]Quoting the first paragraph:Are you suggesting that Pope Benedict's treatment of the Patriarch of the Coptic Catholic Church is any different from Pope Paul VI? That's quite a stretch of the imagination. Maybe just wishful thinking. Honestly, such flippant statements don't help you.[/quote]Not nessessarily, I think that you could be taking his statements out of context, in order to suggest something that isn't, just as you did with supposedly quoting me, suggesting that Pope Shenouda III acknowledged the supremacy of Rome.

[quote]OK, this was Pope Paul VI, not Pope John Paul II. You ask why would he return these relics. For the sake of bringing those in schism back into communion with the Catholic Faith. Catholics have this hope that all Christianity will answer Our Lord's prayer to His Father ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john17.htm#v11"]John 17:11[/url]), "that they may be one just as we are."[/quote]

Would you give relics to Muslims in order to "make peace with hopes that they'll come into the communion of the Catholic Faith"? Sorry but that's never been the church's practice, and never will be... the proper context is that the Roman Patriarch admitted that the relics properly belonged to the rightful owner of them, and the See of St. Mark, the eldest church of Egypt and the only Church in Egypt that St. Mark established! It's a known fact [as I'd given numerous quotes in the past regarding] that after Chalcedon, the entire population of Egypt rejected it and it wasn't until a very long time afterwards, that "clone" rites were established to attempt to replace the true church that St. Mark affirmed.

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1266631' date='May 7 2007, 12:02 AM']Reza, I just read Mateo's post. Please tell me again about how unified the Orthodox Churches are?????[/quote]

This is a loaded question, that contains lots of history. The original unified church of Jesus Christ, that was affirmed by the Apostles wasn't just the Roman Catholic Church, but involved the See of St. Mark [Alexandria], etc. If you'd like to know how "unified" the orthodox churches are, I'm going to say more unified then the Roman Catholic rite is with either of the other Original rites and Sees of the Apostles.

[quote]Come home to Rome and let Benedict XVI settle your disputes with one another.

Likos[/quote]

I don't think it would be intelligent for you to speak about what's good for the Coptic Orthodox Church, as you don't even understand much about it [which has been proven in post, after post, after post such as suggesting that Orthodox Churches put emphisis of faith in culture, race and heritage in violation of the teachings of Jesus Christ, which isn't true].

Maybe it would be best to acknowledge that Jesus is the head of The Church, not a man?

Reza

[Oik]

[quote]Maybe it would be best to acknowledge that Jesus is the head of The Church, not a man?

Reza[/quote]



ATTENTION: TANGENT!

Whoops! I seemed to miss the reality that Reza is Coptic! Wow. I [i]AM[/i] out of the loop here on Phatmass.
Reza, if and when you are ordained to the priesthood, I want an invitation, if you don't mind.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1266647' date='May 7 2007, 03:53 AM']No, I was referencing a different quote [on a different topic], in which documents were signed between hitler's regime [the german gov] and the Roman Catholic Church. Now I'm not saying that the Roman Church went along with hitler [that's a different discussion] but saying that just because the Roman Catholic Church signed a document at one point with the german gov., doesn't mean that they are endorsing everything that the german gov. has done or is going to do... same goes for His Holiness Pope Shenouda III signing a document for unity and peace with the Roman Catholic Church, it doesn't mean that he acknowledges the Roman Catholic Pope's Supremacy [and I definately never quoted anything suggesting such], but that his desire is for one day... for there to be unity... as His Holiness rejected joining the Roman Catholic Church with the simple phrase, "We love you", in which His Holiness Pope John Paul II replied with, "we love you too".[/quote]Maybe you don't recall the assertion you made. Here is the direct quote from your previous post:[quote name='reza']which His Holiness Pope John Paul II acknowledged the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Coptic Orthodox Church to be the true See of St. Mark[/quote]Please provide proof or admit that this statement has no foundation in reality.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1266647' date='May 7 2007, 03:53 AM']Sorry but you must have taken it out of context, as I'd never given "supportive evidence" that suggests that His Holiness Pope Shenouda III [or any other Coptic Patriarch for the matter] believes in or has acknowledged a "supremacy of rome" doctrinal stance or agenda. As a matter of fact, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III has written numerous articles [and books] stating why Copts don't follow Supremacy of Rome doctrine and where Rome is wrong.[/quote]You really need to comprehend my post before responding, because I never suggested what you are claiming in this paragraph--in particular, when did I suggest that you had "given 'supportive evidence' that suggests that His Holiness Pope Shenouda III...believes in or has acknowledged a 'supremacy of rome'"?

I was simply using a simple parallel argument which I knew you would reject, based on the assumption that you were referring to one of the joint declarations as proof of who the pope believed to be the "true See of Mark". If this parallel isn't valid (i.e. you have some other source you are quoting besides a joint declaration), then please provide the quote.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1266647' date='May 7 2007, 03:53 AM']That's a very poor source to be quoting, particularly that particular article that has a severely lack of evidence to "prove" a single thing, except that someone has intentions of decieving and claiming something that they don't have rights to... It's an undeniable fact [which your own Patriarch has admitted on numerous occasions] that the See of St. Mark belongs to the Coptic Orthodox Church and that it was the first rite to ever exist in that area, and possess ever element that proves such [all the Saints relics, and artifacts].[/quote]If the Wiki is a controversial source for you, why don't you disagree with the claim that I'm making? I simply said that the Eastern Orthodox have a patriarch who claims the See of Alexandria. You have admitted as much, citing this as a significant reason for the lack of communion with the Oriental Orthodox. Yet, if you agree with the facts I've presented, why in the world would you challenge the validity of the citation?

In my mind, it looks like you're just looking for a reason for division, even when there is nothing to divide your position from mine.

You claim it is an "an undeniable fact [which your own Patriarch has admitted on numerous occasions] that the See of St. Mark belongs to the Coptic Orthodox Church and that it was the first rite to ever exist in that area". If this is true, then you've got to deal with the fact that both the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church have both denied this "undeniable fact" ever since the Council of Chalcedon. Further, there has been a constant lineage of patriarchs who have challenged your "fact" ever since the split.

Now, if you believe that the Catholic Pope has "admitted on numerous occasions" that the true "See of St. Mark belongs to the Coptic Orthodox Church", then why don't you share with us a couple citations as proof of this claim. I have yet to see a single quote from you.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1266647' date='May 7 2007, 03:53 AM'][quote name='Mateo']Quoting the first paragraph:Are you suggesting that Pope Benedict's treatment of the Patriarch of the Coptic Catholic Church is any different from Pope Paul VI? That's quite a stretch of the imagination. Maybe just wishful thinking. Honestly, such flippant statements don't help you.[/quote]Not nessessarily, I think that you could be taking his statements out of context, in order to suggest something that isn't, just as you did with supposedly quoting me, suggesting that Pope Shenouda III acknowledged the supremacy of Rome.[/quote]OK, so you are agreeing with me: these two popes (Popes Paul VI and Benedict XVI) did not disagree, contrary to what you had initially suggested.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1266647' date='May 7 2007, 03:53 AM']Would you give relics to Muslims in order to "make peace with hopes that they'll come into the communion of the Catholic Faith"? Sorry but that's never been the church's practice, and never will be... the proper context is that the Roman Patriarch admitted that the relics properly belonged to the rightful owner of them, and the See of St. Mark, the eldest church of Egypt and the only Church in Egypt that St. Mark established! It's a known fact [as I'd given numerous quotes in the past regarding] that after Chalcedon, the entire population of Egypt rejected it and it wasn't until a very long time afterwards, that "clone" rites were established to attempt to replace the true church that St. Mark affirmed.[/quote]Well, here you differ with both the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches. They both believe that the Oriental Orthodox are the "clone" rite, similar to the status of Arians were "clone" bishops after the Council of Nicaea.

Regarding the comparison to Islam: Islam is made up of non-Christians. The Oriental Orthodox is a Christian religion which is in schism with the Catholic Church. This is quite a big difference.

Regarding the "entire population of Egypt" rejecting Chalcedon, this is obviously untrue. Otherwise, who were the ancient Melkites (distinct from today's Melkite Rite, by the way), other than being Egyptians who clung to the Catholic Faith? A real split happened. On another point, it is curious that you would suggest that Chalcedon was entirely rejected by the Coptic Church, because today you suggest that the Coptic Orthodox Church agrees with the teachings of Chalcedon, but that this was simply a case of misunderstanding. So, 1600 years ago, everyone from bishops to laymen disagreed with Chalcedon; and now, the Coptic Orthodox Church accepts the substance of Chalcedon? That's quite a change.

OK. So let's sum things up. I'm interested in a single thing: please quote any Catholic pope which states that the patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church sits on the "true See of Alexandria/St. Mark." That's it. You seem to be sure that plenty of evidence exists in papal statements. So, this request should be easy to answer.

Edited May 7, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Oik' post='1266807' date='May 7 2007, 09:54 AM']

ATTENTION: TANGENT!

Whoops! I seemed to miss the reality that Reza is Coptic! Wow. I [i]AM[/i] out of the loop here on Phatmass.
Reza, if and when you are ordained to the priesthood, I want an invitation, if you don't mind.[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]Don't count on that in the near future, I like being laity too much, and don't plan on persuing the priesthood as of yet.[/color]


[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1266876' date='May 7 2007, 11:28 AM']Maybe you don't recall the assertion you made. Here is the direct quote from your previous post:Please provide proof or admit that this statement has no foundation in reality.[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]It has no foundation on reality that asserted that this particular quote, admitted that His Holiness Pope Shenouda acknowledged the Supremacy of the Roman See, which it doesn't say, it simply says that your own Pope [the Roman See] admits that the true owner to the Relics of St. Mark and the See of St. Mark is infact the Coptic Orthodox Church. You completely took the quote out of context to fit your agenda to manipulate the situation for your benefit, a far stretch [probably the farthest.[/color]

[quote]You really need to comprehend my post before responding, because I never suggested what you are claiming in this paragraph--in particular, when did I suggest that you had "given 'supportive evidence' that suggests that His Holiness Pope Shenouda III...believes in or has acknowledged a 'supremacy of rome'"?[/quote][color="#FF0000"]It was a common mistake, based upon this particular quote of yours:[/color]

[quote][color="#00FF00"]This is no more true [/color]than claiming Pope Shenouda acknowledge's the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, because he signed a document which acknowledges the Pope Paul VI as "Pope of the Catholic Church."[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]Nonetheless numerous Roman Popes [since the discussions between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church began] have admitted and affirmed time and time again that the Coptic Orthodox Church is the possessor of the See of St. Mark. You're attempting to slander the reputation and historical facts that prove this, in order to appear as if the church came out of nowhere and doesn't have a right to exist, a mighty shameful thing for a person that would like to see the churches united, I might add.[/color]

[quote]I was simply using a simple parallel argument which I knew you would reject, based on the assumption that you were referring to one of the joint declarations as proof of who the pope believed to be the "true See of Mark". If this parallel isn't valid (i.e. you have some other source you are quoting besides a joint declaration), then please provide the quote.[/quote][color="#FF0000"]It's a simple fact that you chose to reject the Coptic Orthodox Church, as you don't acknowledge her right to exist obviously. As a previous poster had stated, the "Coptic Catholic" church didn't even exist until around the year 1000AD, what was before that? You act as if somehow Egypt didn't have a See of St. Mark before that, which is absurd.[/color]

[code]If the Wiki is a controversial source for you, why don't you disagree with the claim that I'm making? I simply said that the Eastern Orthodox have a patriarch who claims the See of Alexandria. You have admitted as much, citing this as a significant reason for the lack of communion with the Oriental Orthodox. Yet, if you agree with the facts I've presented, why in the world would you challenge the validity of the citation?[/code] [color="#FF0000"]I challenged it because it attempts to say that the Coptic Orthodox Church isn't the Church that St. Mark affirmed, which is an idiotic claim that attempts to slander the Coptic Church in a method that I [nor other Copts] would have ever done to the Roman Catholic Church, as we seek unity. You're deliberately taking twenty steps backwards, and giving the most outrageous arguments, that are not only insulting but uneducated and unproductive. At the best, it's an ignorant claim.[/color]

[code]In my mind, it looks like you're just looking for a reason for division, even when there is nothing to divide your position from mine.[/code] [color="#FF0000"]With all due respect, I'm not the one denying the See of St. Peter to the Roman Catholic Church, while you've attempted to say that the Coptic Orthodox Church isn't the Church that St. Mark affirmed, that it isn't the See of St. Mark, and doesn't have a right to exist. Now you want to talk about divisions? What's more divisive then such slanderous words as those that you've presented?[/color]

[code]You claim it is an "an undeniable fact [which your own Patriarch has admitted on numerous occasions] that the See of St. Mark belongs to the Coptic Orthodox Church and that it was the first rite to ever exist in that area". If this is true, then you've got to deal with the fact that both the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church have both denied this "undeniable fact" ever since the Council of Chalcedon. Further, there has been a constant lineage of patriarchs who have challenged your "fact" ever since the split.[/code] [color="#FF0000"]We don't have to "deal with" the fact that the Roman Catholic Church established a clone of the real See of St. Mark, that's something for the Roman Catholic Church to get beyond. For over 1000 years the Coptic Orthodox Church was in Egypt, long before the Coptic Catholic Clone was ever founded, now you want to talk about who's the original church? What a proposterous and disgraceful claim that you're making. What if someone went to Rome and claimed to be the true See of St. Peter? Does that mean that the Roman Catholic Church isn't truely the See of St. Peter?

You're attempting to demonize the Coptic Church by the fact that the Roman Catholics affirmed a Coptic Catholic Church that's a Clone of the Coptic Orthodox Church in the Middle East, while the West has more then 20,000 divisions [found in Protestantism] that all claim to be "the true church", and then say that I'm the one that's causing division? Seriously, you should take a look in the mirror before making such outrageous claims.[/color]

[quote]Now, if you believe that the Catholic Pope has "admitted on numerous occasions" that the true "See of St. Mark belongs to the Coptic Orthodox Church", then why don't you share with us a couple citations as proof of this claim. I have yet to see a single quote from you.[/quote] [color="#FF0000"]I have provided numerous quotes, as even giving the fact that the Relics of St. Mark were returned to their rightful owner, the true See of St. Mark but you refuse to acknowledge a single one of them. Why would I waste more time on you, when you can't even give Copts the respect that Copts give to you?[/color]

[quote]Not nessessarily, I think that you could be taking his statements out of context, in order to suggest something that isn't, just as you did with supposedly quoting me, suggesting that Pope Shenouda III acknowledged the supremacy of Rome.OK, so you are agreeing with me: these two popes (Popes Paul VI and Benedict XVI) did not disagree, contrary to what you had initially suggested.[/quote][color="#FF0000"]It's not contrary to what I previously suggested, I simply didn't want to accuse you of taking his statements outside of context for the sake of your own agenda, but now that you've intentionally insulted Copts, I'm not going to show you much respect that you havn't earned. If you want to regain this respect, start by showing Copts some respect, as I'd repeated given Roman Catholics respect, despite the fact that I disagree with them heavily [IE: I havn't rejected their claim to the See of St. Peter, regardless of lots of personal thoughts I have regarding it]. You talk about uniting and not causing divisions, focus on your statements and then tell me if they are one's of division or unity...[/color]

[quote]Well, here you differ with both the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches. They both believe that the Oriental Orthodox are the "clone" rite, similar to the status of Arians were "clone" bishops after the Council of Nicaea.[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]No they don't, they simply believe that the Oriental Orthodox have gone astray. A clone would suggest that they are a false replica of something real, the other orthodox churches and the roman catholic church both acknowledge that the Coptic Church is the original Church that St. Mark affirmed, as after Chalcedon it was the only church in Egypt for many many years to come and it wasn't just a selective few Egyptians that rejected Chalcedon but the entire country as a whole, united! As His Holiness [your own Pope] Said:[/color]

[quote]"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." [/quote][code]In response, His Holiness Pope Shenouda said, "We have to declare that between us there are many points of agreement in the principles of faith. As for points of difference, there is no doubt that after fifteen centuries of study, examination, and controversy, we are at much nearer grounds of agreement than our ancestors of the fifth and sixth centuries. We are all more ready and more intense in our desire to reach solutions for differences and attain simpler expressions of our common faith."[/code]

[code]In June 1989, His Holiness opened the conference of the International Commission for Inter-Orthodox theological Dialogue. A part of the agreed statement said: "When we speak of the one composite (synthetos) hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, we do not say that in Him a divine hypostasis and a human hypostasis came together. It is that the one eternal hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity has assumed our created human nature in that act of uniting it with His own uncreated divine nature, to form an inseparably and unconfusedly united real divine-human being, the natures being distinguished from each other contemplation (theoria) only....We agree in condemning the Nestorian and the Eutychian heresies. We neither separate nor divide the human nature in Christ from His divine nature, nor do we think that the former was absorbed in the latter and thus ceased to exist"[/code]

[color="#FF0000"]See the difference between you and me, is that I'm willing to admit the historical facts of the Church of Jesus Christ. I'm willing to acknowledge the Roman Catholics contributions to the Nicene Creed, along with the Coptic, while you're attempting to deny that Copts their honor that was given to them by Jesus Christ and their contribution to the Pre-schism Church.[/color]

[quote]Regarding the comparison to Islam: Islam is made up of non-Christians. The Oriental Orthodox is a Christian religion which is in schism with the Catholic Church. This is quite a big difference.[/quote]

[color="#F4A460"]No it's not, Islam was founded in Christianity and it wasn't until later that it evolved into the modern Islam that we're seeing today. Your claim that the Roman Catholic Church would give the relics of an Apostle to someone that wasn't the rightful owner or part of the Pre-schism Church is absurd, simple and plain.[/color]

[code]Regarding the "entire population of Egypt" rejecting Chalcedon, this is obviously untrue. Otherwise, who were the ancient Melkites (distinct from today's Melkite Rite, by the way), other than being Egyptians who clung to the Catholic Faith?[/code]

[color="#FF0000"]Melkite Rite was a later invention! It's a proven fact that it was the entire population of Egypt, since you've quoted Wikipedia, let me.[/color]

[code]Almost the entire Egyptian population rejected the terms of the Council of Chalcedon and remained faithful to the native Egyptian Church (now known as the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria).[/code]

[color="#FF0000"]Melkites didn't get their own rite until after 1342![/color]


[code]A real split happened. On another point, it is curious that you would suggest that Chalcedon was entirely rejected by the Coptic Church, because today you suggest that the Coptic Orthodox Church agrees with the teachings of Chalcedon, but that this was simply a case of misunderstanding.[/code]

[color="#FF0000"]When did I say that the Coptic Orthodox Church agrees with the teachings of Chalcedon? I NEVER SAID THAT! You're again manipulating my own statements to fit your own agenda, which has become typical of you. If you know anything of the history of the Coptic Orthodox Church, you'll know that that isn't true. Copts are Miaphysites, NOT DYOPHYSITES![/color]

[color="#FF0000"]Given the nature of this discussion, I'm really not interested in discussing it with someone that has no respect for Copts [and orthodox as a whole]. I'm more then willing to discuss it with other Roman Catholics that can respect Copts, as they should be respected but you've proven that you don't, so there's no point in continuing.

Reza[/color]

[Aloysius]

I think it likely that Rome considers both to hold the See of St. Mark for the time being; as, if the Coptic Orthodox Church were to enter the Roman communion, the two sees would be merged.

From our perspective, one sits in the See of St. Mark but is in schism with the Universal Church, whilst the other holds that See within the Universal Church; in the place of where the holder of the See in schism would be were he to re-enter the Communion of the Universal Church.

I have great respect for Copts, my anthropology teacher stayed for a time with Coptic Orthodox monks in Egypt. He wrote this book about the experience: [url="http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Back-Eden-Desert-Fathers/dp/1570754330"]http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Back-Eden-De...s/dp/1570754330[/url] Great book, I highly recommend it.

Anyway, Reza, you have to understand that we must recognize as holding a true See that Church of Copts which is in communion with us. As I see it, we see them as holding the See of St. Mark in place in the Universal Communion; even though there is also a true historical See of St. Mark outside of the Universal Communion. Were the latter to come into the Universal Communion, he would probably replace the former as Patriarch of all the Copts (except those under the claimant set up by the Eastern Orthodox)

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1267285' date='May 7 2007, 04:17 PM']I think it likely that Rome considers both to hold the See of St. Mark for the time being; as, if the Coptic Orthodox Church were to enter the Roman communion, the two sees would be merged.

From our perspective, one sits in the See of St. Mark but is in schism with the Universal Church, whilst the other holds that See within the Universal Church; in the place of where the holder of the See in schism would be were he to re-enter the Communion of the Universal Church.

I have great respect for Copts, my anthropology teacher stayed for a time with Coptic Orthodox monks in Egypt. He wrote this book about the experience: [url="http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Back-Eden-Desert-Fathers/dp/1570754330"]http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Back-Eden-De...s/dp/1570754330[/url] Great book, I highly recommend it.

Anyway, Reza, you have to understand that we must recognize as holding a true See that Church of Copts which is in communion with us. As I see it, we see them as holding the See of St. Mark in place in the Universal Communion; even though there is also a true historical See of St. Mark outside of the Universal Communion. Were the latter to come into the Universal Communion, he would probably replace the former as Patriarch of all the Copts (except those under the claimant set up by the Eastern Orthodox)[/quote]

I can respect your position there, that's not really what I have a problem with, it's people that would deny Copts as the original holders of the See of St. Mark.

[Mateo el Feo]

Part One...

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']It has no foundation on reality that asserted that this particular quote, admitted that His Holiness Pope Shenouda acknowledged the Supremacy of the Roman See, which it doesn't say, it simply says that your own Pope [the Roman See] admits that the true owner to the Relics of St. Mark and the See of St. Mark is infact the Coptic Orthodox Church. You completely took the quote out of context to fit your agenda to manipulate the situation for your benefit, a far stretch [probably the farthest.[/quote]You really aren't understanding what I've written.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']It was a common mistake, based upon this particular quote of yours:[/quote]I can only conclude that English isn't your first language.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']Nonetheless numerous Roman Popes [since the discussions between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church began] have admitted and affirmed time and time again that the Coptic Orthodox Church is the possessor of the See of St. Mark. You're attempting to slander the reputation and historical facts that prove this, in order to appear as if the church came out of nowhere and doesn't have a right to exist, a mighty shameful thing for a person that would like to see the churches united, I might add.[/quote]The Coptic Orthodox didn't come out of nowhere. It was half of the schism that came out of the Council of Chalcedon. The other half remained with Rome and Constantinople.

As far as "numerous Roman Popes " are concerned, I didn't ask for a quote from numerous popes. I asked a quote from one pope. So far, I'm still waiting.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']It's a simple fact that you chose to reject the Coptic Orthodox Church, as you don't acknowledge her right to exist obviously. As a previous poster had stated, the "Coptic Catholic" church didn't even exist until around the year 1000AD, what was before that? You act as if somehow Egypt didn't have a See of St. Mark before that, which is absurd.[/quote]Actually, if you would like to see the lineage of an alternative See of St. Mark, here it is:
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Patriarch_of_Alexandria"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Patr...h_of_Alexandria[/url]

Just for fun, you may be interested to know that, when Pope St. Gregory the Great (the one that you had cited a few days ago), wrote to the See of Alexandria (e.g. Eulogius), he was writing to the men on the lineage I cited above. Among other things, he was concerned about "winning those who had given way to heresy" ([url="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.clxvi.html"]link[/url]).

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']I challenged it because it attempts to say that the Coptic Orthodox Church isn't the Church that St. Mark affirmed, which is an idiotic claim that attempts to slander the Coptic Church in a method that I [nor other Copts] would have ever done to the Roman Catholic Church, as we seek unity. You're deliberately taking twenty steps backwards, and giving the most outrageous arguments, that are not only insulting but uneducated and unproductive. At the best, it's an ignorant claim.[/quote]All I stated was that the Greek Orthodox have a claimant. The Wikipedia article reinforces the claim. And you happen to agree with me. I fail to see why such a basic admission of fact should be called "ignorant." I'm even more puzzled why you would agree with something "ignorant."

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']With all due respect, I'm not the one denying the See of St. Peter to the Roman Catholic Church, while you've attempted to say that the Coptic Orthodox Church isn't the Church that St. Mark affirmed, that it isn't the See of St. Mark, and doesn't have a right to exist. Now you want to talk about divisions? What's more divisive then such slanderous words as those that you've presented?[/quote]History is not slanderous. It is what it is. Alternate claimants exist in Alexandria. That's a fact. An objective fact.

By the way, there are no alternative claimants of the See of Rome, so it's not really an appropriate comparison.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']We don't have to "deal with" the fact that the Roman Catholic Church established a clone of the real See of St. Mark, that's something for the Roman Catholic Church to get beyond. For over 1000 years the Coptic Orthodox Church was in Egypt, long before the Coptic Catholic Clone was ever founded, now you want to talk about who's the original church? What a proposterous and disgraceful claim that you're making. What if someone went to Rome and claimed to be the true See of St. Peter? Does that mean that the Roman Catholic Church isn't truely the See of St. Peter?[/quote]The Coptic Catholics are actually individual Copts who have retained their traditions, while returning to full union with the Catholic Faith. Since the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox were united until the Great Schism, is it surprising to anyone that there was only one pro-Chalcedon claimant of the See of St. Mark in the first millenium? It ain't rocket science.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']You're attempting to demonize the Coptic Church by the fact that the Roman Catholics affirmed a Coptic Catholic Church that's a Clone of the Coptic Orthodox Church in the Middle East, while the West has more then 20,000 divisions [found in Protestantism] that all claim to be "the true church", and then say that I'm the one that's causing division? Seriously, you should take a look in the mirror before making such outrageous claims.[/quote]Forgive me, are you saying that the Catholic Church caused Protestantism to divide in little pieces? As far as "demonizing" goes, I could hardly get you to say "Roman Catholic", let alone "Catholic", because of your biases against the Catholic Church. I don't believe that I took your word games personally. I tried to correct you, but I don't remember responding with an emotional backlash.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']I have provided numerous quotes, as even giving the fact that the Relics of St. Mark were returned to their rightful owner, the true See of St. Mark but you refuse to acknowledge a single one of them. Why would I waste more time on you, when you can't even give Copts the respect that Copts give to you?[/quote]You gave zero quotes. There is a vast difference between zero and numerous.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']It's not contrary to what I previously suggested, I simply didn't want to accuse you of taking his statements outside of context for the sake of your own agenda, but now that you've intentionally insulted Copts, I'm not going to show you much respect that you havn't earned. If you want to regain this respect, start by showing Copts some respect, as I'd repeated given Roman Catholics respect, despite the fact that I disagree with them heavily[/quote]I'm not a theologian. I'm not a PhD. I'm not a historian. I'm just a laymen. The only respect I think I deserve is the respect that one human being gives to another. This shouldn't be too much to ask from a Christian. In fact, I'm less interested in "respect" than intellectual honesty. Civility doesn't hurt, either.

As for the point you were making, I take it you were trying to build a case that two popes who disagree somehow destroys the claim of Papal Infallibility. I think that's what your target was. I didn't get emotional about this. I suspect there was some malice in the way you presented your case. Yet, I responded the best way I knew how: presenting facts which contradict your accusation. No emotions necessary.

And, if you'd like to do some growing up, don't hold back respect as if it's a bargaining chip. Again, this behavior reflects poorly on you, not me. I don't worry about such games. Heck, I dialogue with Budge; that should clue you in a little.

[Mateo el Feo]

Part two...

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']IE: I havn't rejected their claim to the See of St. Peter, regardless of lots of personal thoughts I have regarding it.[/quote]I'd love to see your argument in this department. But, this would probably be best presented on a new thread.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']You talk about uniting and not causing divisions, focus on your statements and then tell me if they are one's of division or unity.[/quote]My statements do no more than present reality. Do I cause the division between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox when I admit that division exists? I am not to blame for this division; I'm merely stating facts.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']No they don't, they simply believe that the Oriental Orthodox have gone astray. A clone would suggest that they are a false replica of something real, the other orthodox churches and the roman catholic church both acknowledge that the Coptic Church is the original Church that St. Mark affirmed, as after Chalcedon it was the only church in Egypt for many many years to come and it wasn't just a selective few Egyptians that rejected Chalcedon but the entire country as a whole, united![/quote]How could the entire country be united, and yet be persecuted by another Christian presence in Egypt. The pro-Chalcedon presence in Egypt was surely significant if they could rule until the rise of Islam. Or were all the persecutions made by a population that didn't exist. This is your problem: you change the facts to suite convenience. That's not fair.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']As His Holiness [your own Pope] Said:[/quote]This is the first I have seen of this quote. Unfortunately, he does not state what you wish him to state. There is no mention of the "true" See of St. Mark. Also, the "tracing back to St. Mark" could be said of the Orthodox claimant as well.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']In response, His Holiness Pope Shenouda said, "We have to declare that between us there are many points of agreement in the principles of faith. As for points of difference, there is no doubt that after fifteen centuries of study, examination, and controversy, we are at much nearer grounds of agreement than our ancestors of the fifth and sixth centuries. We are all more ready and more intense in our desire to reach solutions for differences and attain simpler expressions of our common faith.[/quote]Wonderful.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']See the difference between you and me, is that I'm willing to admit the historical facts of the Church of Jesus Christ. I'm willing to acknowledge the Roman Catholics contributions to the Nicene Creed, along with the Coptic, while you're attempting to deny that Copts their honor that was given to them by Jesus Christ and their contribution to the Pre-schism Church.[/quote]I don't know exactly where you are going with this.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']No it's not, Islam was founded in Christianity and it wasn't until later that it evolved into the modern Islam that we're seeing today. Your claim that the Roman Catholic Church would give the relics of an Apostle to someone that wasn't the rightful owner or part of the Pre-schism Church is absurd, simple and plain.[/quote]Emotional words aside, the facts fit. The Coptic Orthodox is a church in schism with the Catholic Faith. They are brothers and sisters in Christ, and we hope that they can one day be united back with the Universal Church. Muslims are not even Christians.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']Melkite Rite was a later invention! It's a proven fact that it was the entire population of Egypt, since you've quoted Wikipedia, let me.[/quote]The Melkite Rite is not what is being discussed. I just didn't want you to be confused between the ancient Christians called "Melkites" and the modern Melkite rite, which is an Antiochian Rite. Maybe you're don't know this distinction?

As far as "proven facts" go, I'll repeat my concern about your version of history: you still haven't explained how the ancient Melkites had such a presence among Egyptians that they could persecute the Copts for centuries, while simultaneously not existing because the entire population was Coptic Orthodox. These are contradictory assertions that you have made.

[Mateo el Feo]

Part three...

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']Melkites didn't get their own rite until after 1342![/quote]Again...diffferent Melkites.
[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']When did I say that the Coptic Orthodox Church agrees with the teachings of Chalcedon? I NEVER SAID THAT! You're again manipulating my own statements to fit your own agenda, which has become typical of you. If you know anything of the history of the Coptic Orthodox Church, you'll know that that isn't true. Copts are Miaphysites, NOT DYOPHYSITES![/quote]Be careful of the term "Dyophysite", because there is a big difference between what the Nestorians believe and what the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox taught in Chalcedon. While everyone describes Nestorianism as "Dyophysite", it is only non-Chalcedonians who associate the term with the Council of Chalcedon. I would suggest that this would consistitute a real manipulation of statements to fit an agenda.

Catholics and Eastern Orthodox reject both Nestorius and Eutyches.

As far as "manipulating statements to fit an agenda," I don't know exactly what I could manipulate. I recall that we spoke about Chalcedon. I thought that you had suggested that the acceptance of Chalcedon (which rejected Monophysitism) was no greater challenge than acknowledging a misunderstanding of terms (e.g. Monophysitism vs. Miaphysitism), especially when dealing with multiple languages, each with its own nuance. If the current Coptic Orthodox Church rejects the same Monophysitism that was rejected by the Church at Chalcedon, is it a manipulation for me to suggest that they accept the Council of Chalcedon's statements pertaining to Monophysitism? I find Pope Shenouda III's words supporting my suggestion, considering that he see little or no distinction between his Christological understanding and the Catholic understanding of Our Lord's Nature, which is guided by Chalcedon.

I want to comment for a second on the problem of your relying only on the Coptic Church for history. About a month ago, you claimed that the Council of Chalcedon contained a blanket excommunication against Copts--this statement proved unfounded. You also claimed that Copts were prevented from attending the Council--something directly contradicted by Canon 30. No doubt, these accusations came from a pro-Coptic Orthodox source. Yet, your biased sources could not be trusted to be faithful to history. I would strongly encourage you to use this as an opportunity to open your eyes to other non-Coptic sources of information. For someone who hadn't even read the documents of Chalcedon, you found it reasonable to villify the Council. Lack of knowledge breeds such fears.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1267272' date='May 7 2007, 07:04 PM']Given the nature of this discussion, I'm really not interested in discussing it with someone that has no respect for Copts [and orthodox as a whole]. I'm more then willing to discuss it with other Roman Catholics that can respect Copts, as they should be respected but you've proven that you don't, so there's no point in continuing.[/quote]That's your prerogative. No one has an obligation to contribute to any discussions. And we are free to comment on any thread and any post. I exercise that freedom. In your case, I find some of your "facts" to be no more than the party line of the Coptic Orthodox Church. When the party line is in error or is partially omitting facts, I will always try to correct those errors.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1267869' date='May 8 2007, 12:14 AM']You really aren't understanding what I've written.[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]Surely I am, it's just very distant from the truth.[/color]

[quote]I can only conclude that English isn't your first language.[/quote][color="#FF0000"]Because a common mistake was made with the english language, that I'd seen other english speakers [that only speak english] have made? Nonetheless, if English is or isn't my first language, it's very rude for you to use it as such for your own benefit.[/color]

[quote]The Coptic Orthodox didn't come out of nowhere. It was half of the schism that came out of the Council of Chalcedon. The other half remained with Rome and Constantinople.[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]This is severely disconnected from the truth, if half of the Coptic Church had left because of Chalcedon, it would have been well documented in history, but as I'd shown it wasn't. As a matter of fact, nearly every theologian and historian has concluded against your assumption.[/color]

[quote]As far as "numerous Roman Popes " are concerned, I didn't ask for a quote from numerous popes. I asked a quote from one pope. So far, I'm still waiting.[/quote][color="#FF0000"]I'd already given you more then that, I'd given you facts, that you can't seem to accept.[/color]

[quote]Actually, if you would like to see the lineage of an alternative See of St. Mark, here it is:
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Patriarch_of_Alexandria"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Patr...h_of_Alexandria[/url][/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]That's a clone of the original, as I'd given sufficient facts to, in which even Eastern Orthodox accept and admit. They arent the original, as Copts even possess the original churches of St. Mark, etc. Your claimms are just to confuse people in order to manipulate them.[/color]

[quote]Just for fun, you may be interested to know that, when Pope St. Gregory the Great (the one that you had cited a few days ago), wrote to the See of Alexandria (e.g. Eulogius), he was writing to the men on the lineage I cited above. Among other things, he was concerned about "winning those who had given way to heresy" ([url="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.clxvi.html"]link[/url]).[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]No he wasn't, because St. Gregory spoke of St. Athanasius, who was Coptic Orthodox and spoke from personal experiences regarding.[/color]

[quote]All I stated was that the Greek Orthodox have a claimant. The Wikipedia article reinforces the claim. And you happen to agree with me. I fail to see why such a basic admission of fact should be called "ignorant." I'm even more puzzled why you would agree with something "ignorant."[/quote][color="#FF0000"]I never agreed with you, beyond the fact that everyone can "claim" whatever they want, but history testifies otherwise. We're the only one's that had affiliation with St. Mark himself, in regards to the See of St. Mark. Copts were the one's that barried him, the one's that built the first church dedicated to him, possess his relics, etc. It is very ignorant for you to bank on something as you have, and take it as fact. That's equivilent to using budge's resources and saying that they're fact, rather then use common sense and take the hardline view.[/color]

[quote]History is not slanderous. It is what it is. Alternate claimants exist in Alexandria. That's a fact. An objective fact.[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]It's not history, as history proves that the Coptic Orthodox Church is the only possessors of the See of St. Mark.[/color]

[code]By the way, there are no alternative claimants of the See of Rome, so it's not really an appropriate comparison.[/code]

[color="#FF0000"]There are numerous people, even those that claim to be Roman Catholic that don't validate your pope as having possession to the See of St. Peter, so it's a great comparision. There are even Protestants that believe they have the same authority of St. Peter, so as I'd pointed out, it's a great comparison.[/color]

[code]The Coptic Catholics are actually individual Copts who have retained their traditions, while returning to full union with the Catholic Faith. Since the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox were united until the Great Schism, is it surprising to anyone that there was only one pro-Chalcedon claimant of the See of St. Mark in the first millenium? It ain't rocket science.[/code]

[color="#FF0000"]They havn't retained their faith and they're not Copts. The Coptic Catholic Church is a clone, a mimic of the real See of Mark and wasn't even affirmed until over 1000 years after the original was affirmed by St. Mark himself. You're acting as if the Roman Catholic Pope has more authority then St. Mark himself. They don't keep the traditions, because they deny that which St. Mark gave to the Church of Jesus Christ that he affirmed![/color]

[code]Forgive me, are you saying that the Catholic Church caused Protestantism to divide in little pieces? As far as "demonizing" goes, I could hardly get you to say "Roman Catholic", let alone "Catholic", because of your biases against the Catholic Church. I don't believe that I took your word games personally. I tried to correct you, but I don't remember responding with an emotional backlash.[/code]

[color="#FF0000"]The Great Protestantism divide happened under the Roman Catholic Jurisdiction, so yes I'm saying that they are responsible and yes your claims were insulting to Copts worldwide.[/color]

[code]As for the point you were making, I take it you were trying to build a case that two popes who disagree somehow destroys the claim of Papal Infallibility.[/code]

[color="#FF0000"]I did make that point, because it does present an obvious problem for Roman Catholics theology, along with the quotes from and about St. Athanasius also, and it wasn't said in malice, it was said in honesty. As I'd pointed out Aloysius's claims/disagreements regards to Copts is quite different then yours. You're searching for whatever conspiracy theories that you can find, to deny Copts the right to the See of St. Mark.[/color]

[quote]And, if you'd like to do some growing up, don't hold back respect as if it's a bargaining chip. Again, this behavior reflects poorly on you, not me. I don't worry about such games. Heck, I dialogue with Budge; that should clue you in a little. [/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]It's your behavior that isn't respectable and hasn't been respectable. I'm glad that you mention budge, because the claims that you've made, are a replica of the claims that she makes against Roman Catholicism. If you'd genuinely like to have a discussion with honor and integrity, I'm more then willing but making far fetched claims that Copts aren't the true Copts that St. Mark affirmed and aren't the rightful owners to his relics, etc. is ridiculous and I wouldn't be so absurd to insult Roman Catholics as such, as I ask that you stop your false claims of Copts. This discussion was supposed to be about dialog, and you've turned it into something else by denying Copts the most basic of honor that they are entitled to...[/color]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1267870' date='May 8 2007, 12:22 AM']I'd love to see your argument in this department. But, this would probably be best presented on a new thread.[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]I'd be ablidged if you have some more respect for Copts then you've been giving them.[/color]

[code]My statements do no more than present reality. Do I cause the division between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox when I admit that division exists? I am not to blame for this division; I'm merely stating facts.[/code]

[color="#FF0000"]You havn't just admitted that divisions exist, but you'd attempted to further your agenda based upon that, that's the difference. Divisions exist amongst the Greek Orthodox [who had once joined the Roman Church] and the Roman Catholic Church, but I don't use that for my agenda against the Roman Catholic Church.[/color]

[code]How could the entire country be united, and yet be persecuted by another Christian presence in Egypt.[/code]

[color="#FF0000"]The persecuters were an outside presence. Melkites were from Sudan in part, you don't think they went to Egypt?[/color]

[code]The pro-Chalcedon presence in Egypt was surely significant if they could rule until the rise of Islam. Or were all the persecutions made by a population that didn't exist. This is your problem: you change the facts to suite convenience. That's not fair.[/code]

[color="#FF0000"]No that's what you're doing, by rejecting the direction of your own patriarchs to fit your agenda. The Melkites didn't rule until the rise of Islam, that's a major flaw of yours, infact Islam partly moved in because of the persecution from the crusaders. Why would the crusaders have to come to Egypt to persecute, if there were already Roman Catholics [Coptic Catholics, which by the way didn't even exist until 1000+AD] in Egypt? Tell me, who possessed the original See of St. Mark and his relics before the Crusades? IT WAS THE COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCH! Even despite the crusades, and the violence against Copts, who's the majority in Egypt? It's the Coptic Orthodox Church! When St. Mary appeared in the 60's in Egypt, who's Churches was it prophesied about that she'd visit and who's church did she visit? COPTIC ORTHODOX CHURCHES! THE TRUE SEE OF ST. MARK![/color]

[code]This is the first I have seen of this quote. Unfortunately, he does not state what you wish him to state. There is no mention of the "true" See of St. Mark. Also, the "tracing back to St. Mark" could be said of the Orthodox claimant as well.[/code] [color="#FF0000"]See this is the problem, even when your own patriarch admits that we're the church affirmed by St. Mark, the one and only church of St. Athanasius and St. Mark, you attempt to squirmish your way around it to continue in your false sense of history.[/color]

[code]I don't know exactly where you are going with this.[/code] [color="#FF0000"]Obviously you don't...[/color]

[code]Emotional words aside, the facts fit. The Coptic Orthodox is a church in schism with the Catholic Faith. They are brothers and sisters in Christ, and we hope that they can one day be united back with the Universal Church. Muslims are not even Christians.[/code]

[color="#FF0000"]The so called "fact" doesn't fit, Muslims were based upon the Syriac Orthodox Church in Saudi Arabia, yet again... you don't see the Church giving the Relics of Christ's Saints to non-believers that don't have rights to their relics, to "bring them into the church". That's never been a practice of the church, rather your own Pope returned the relics of St. Mark to their rightful owner, in which the Roman Catholic Crusades stole them wrongfully.[/color]

[code]The Melkite Rite is not what is being discussed. I just didn't want you to be confused between the ancient Christians called "Melkites" and the modern Melkite rite, which is an Antiochian Rite. Maybe you're don't know this distinction?[/code]

[color="#FF0000"]No you were the one that brought it up, so I wanted to present the facts behind it, rather then how you were twisting it.[/color]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1267875' date='May 8 2007, 01:01 AM']Again...diffferent Melkites.
Be careful of the term "Dyophysite", because there is a big difference between what the Nestorians believe and what the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox taught in Chalcedon. While everyone describes Nestorianism as "Dyophysite", it is only non-Chalcedonians who associate the term with the Council of Chalcedon. I would suggest that this would consistitute a real manipulation of statements to fit an agenda.[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]No, history has used the word "dyophysite" to describe Chalcedonians, not non-Chalcedonian Christians.[/color]

[code]Catholics and Eastern Orthodox reject both Nestorius and Eutyches.[/code]

[color="#FF0000"]That doesn't mean that they aren't Dyophysites, but I find it very interesting that you don't like Oriental Orthodox to use the term "Dyophysite" yet you use the term "Monophysites" for them, when they were never Monophsyites, never have been and the Council of Chalcedon [and others that followed] got it wrong about Oriental Orthodox, by condemning them Monophysites, when they were never monophysites but Miaphysites.[/color]

[quote]I find Pope Shenouda III's words supporting my suggestion, considering that he see little or no distinction between his Christological understanding and the Catholic understanding of Our Lord's Nature, which is guided by Chalcedon.[/quote][color="#FF0000"]Maybe you should read His Holiness Pope Shenouda III's words and statements more clearly before suggesting something so proposterous?[/color]

I want to comment for a second on the problem of your relying only on the Coptic Church for history. About a month ago, you claimed that the Council of Chalcedon contained a blanket excommunication against Copts--this statement proved unfounded.

[color="#FF0000"]It did discuss the excommunication of Copts, as Copts were killed massively after Chalcedon, check your history. Just because it wasn't written in the creeds doesn't mean that it wasn't discussed. The Pauline Heresey and invalidity of their baptisms was discussed at Nicene but that doesn't mean that it was written in the Creed.[/color]

[quote]You also claimed that Copts were prevented from attending the Council--something directly contradicted by Canon 30[/quote] [color="#FF0000"]It's a historical fact that they were kept from attending the Council, as you may notice that the council was switched to Chalecdon at the last minute [it was supposed to be somewhere else, this isn't me saying this, it's a historical fact, check your own source WIKIPEDIA]. Copts would have attended the council and were prepared to attend but were kept from attending by force. [/color]

[quote]Under the authority of the Eastern Roman Empire of Constantinople (as opposed to the western empire of Rome), the Patriarchs and Popes of Alexandria played leading roles in Christian theology. They were invited everywhere to speak about the Christian faith. Saint Cyril, Pope of Alexandria, was the head of the Ecumenical Council which was held in Ephesus in the year 430 A.D. It was said that the bishops of the Church of Alexandria did nothing but spend all their time in meetings. This leading role, however, did not fare well when politics started to intermingle with Church affairs. It all started when the Emperor Marcianus interfered with matters of faith in the Church. The response of Saint Dioscorus, the Pope of Alexandria who was later exiled, to this interference was clear: "You have nothing to do with the Church." These political motives became even more apparent in Chalcedon in 451, when the Coptic Church was unfairly accused of following the teachings of Eutyches, who believed in monophysitism. This doctrine maintains that the Lord Jesus Christ has only one nature, the divine, not two natures, the human as well as the divine.

The Coptic Church has never believed in monophysitism the way it was portrayed in the Council of Chalcedon! In that Council, monophysitism meant believing in one nature. Copts believe that the Lord is perfect in His divinity, and He is perfect in His humanity, but His divinity and His humanity were united in one nature called "the nature of the incarnate word", which was reiterated by Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Copts, thus, believe in two natures "human" and "divine" that are united in one "without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration" (from the declaration of faith at the end of the Coptic divine liturgy). These two natures "did not separate for a moment or the twinkling of an eye" (also from the declaration of faith at the end of the Coptic divine liturgy). [/quote][color="#FF0000"]What I like about this quote is that it proves that Rome never had supremacy [as St. Cyril was the head of a particular council that even Roman Catholics venerate] and that it proves, what Copts believe without distortions but I'mm sure that you want further proof:[/color]

[color="#FF0000"]Emperor Theodosius II gave presidency over the council to Dioscurus, bishop of Alexandria[/color]

[code]No doubt, these accusations came from a pro-Coptic Orthodox source. Yet, your biased sources could not be trusted to be faithful to history.[/code] [color="#FF0000"]If you consider my sources to be 'bias' [thou they didn't come from just Coptic sources, but more neutral sources then yours], you're just as guilty for quoting pro-Roman Catholic sources, so what's your point? Your point is that your sources are non-bias and mine are bias, which is ridiculous. [b]You sound like the hunch back of Notre dame telling me to sit up straight.[/b][/color]

[code]I would strongly encourage you to use this as an opportunity to open your eyes to other non-Coptic sources of information.[/code] [color="#FF0000"]And I would strongly encourage you to use this as an opportunity to open your eyes to non-Roman Catholic Sources of information, and examine the facts about Chalcedon [among other issues] from the proper perspective that has been proven time and time again and stop referring to Copts as Monophysites, etc.[/color]

[code]For someone who hadn't even read the documents of Chalcedon, you found it reasonable to villify the Council.[/code] [color="#FF0000"]For the record, you don't know what I'd read and what I havn't read, so you're in no position to say something on one side of the issue or the other. It's obvious that you havn't read everything on the subject of the council, so to be in favor of it shows a lack of intelligence. Do you just convert to another religion because you read a few articles about it or do you examine it fully? I'd provided historical facts about Chalcedon, the suffering of Copts at the hands of Roman Catholics and others over Chalcedon, so don't talk to me about the politcs of it, since you won't even recognize the fullness of it.[/color]

[quote]The Council of Chalcedon, which is believed to have condemned Eutyches, did not deal with him but with Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria. Eutyches himself was not present at the council. Scholars state that Dioscorus was deprived of office on procedural grounds and not on account of erroneous belief. At Chalcedon Dioscorus strongly declared, "If Eutyches holds notions disallowed by the doctrines of the Church, he deserves not only punishment but even the fire. But my concern is for the catholic and apostolic faith, not for any man whomsoever." The evidence is sufficient for us to look for other reasons for his condemnation.

As soon as the members of the council had assembled, the legates of Rome demanded that Dioscorus be banished on account of the order of the bishop of Rome whom they called, "the head of all churches". When the imperial authorities asked for a charge to justify the demand, one of the legates said that he "dared to conduct a council without the authorization of the apostolic see, a thing which has never happened and which ought not to happen." As a matter of fact, the Council of 381 had been held without the participation, not to say the authorization, of the bishop of Rome, and the Council of 553 against his wishes. It is evident that the delegates intended by the words, "the head of all churches" to assert the claim of Rome of ecumenical supremacy over the church.

Chalcedon rejected the Council of 449, and Leo of Rome considered it as latrocinium, a council of robbers, a title which "has stuck for all time." This may uncover the intention behind such an attitude. A council which ignored Rome's authority, robbing its claim of supremacy, was not for Leo a church council but a meeting of robbers. The Council of Chalcedon, without even examining the issue, denounced the Council of 449, putting the entire responsibility for its decrees exclusively on Dioscorus. Only one hundred and four years later, the decision, not of Chalcedon, but of the so called latrocinium was justified. The Council of Constantinople in 553 anathematized Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa, and condemned their Three Chapters. It is remarkable that the desire of the Emperor Justinian to reconcile the non-Chalcedonian churches was behind the decree.[/quote]

[code]That's your prerogative. No one has an obligation to contribute to any discussions. And we are free to comment on any thread and any post. I exercise that freedom. In your case, I find some of your "facts" to be no more than the party line of the Coptic Orthodox Church. When the party line is in error or is partially omitting facts, I will always try to correct those errors.[/code]

[color="#FF0000"]No you've continued in errors, even when the truth has been presented. A great and primary example of this is Chalcedon. You've repeatedly said that Copts were Monophysites and that the council never spoke on Copts, which is a factual inaccuracy, not just by Coptic sources but even by scholars outside of the Coptic realm. Historians that just study nothing but this matter. Moreover, you say that it's not acceptable to quote Coptic scholars but it's perfectly acceptable to quote Roman Catholic Scholars and supposed "applogetics" sites, but not Coptic, which puts you as the odd man out.[/color]

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1268350' date='May 8 2007, 08:22 PM']Because a common mistake was made with the english language, that I'd seen other english speakers [that only speak english] have made? Nonetheless, if English is or isn't my first language, it's very rude for you to use it as such for your own benefit.[/quote]I don't "only speak english." I hope you'll forgive my apparent rudeness...there is no "benefit" to be derived from my statement. I simply feel that your inability to understand plain English presents a roadblock for discussion. It is also causing you to go off on tangents that had nothing to do with my statements.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1268350' date='May 8 2007, 08:22 PM']That's a clone of the original, as I'd given sufficient facts to, in which even Eastern Orthodox accept and admit.[/quote]Just as I'm not convinced with the dearth of proof regarding the Catholic Church, I'm equally unimpressed with the lack of proof for this new claim that the Eastern Orthodox, who take pride in their own 2,000 year history in Alexandria. Maybe you could quote the Eastern Orthodox? I'll help you by providing their website:
[url="http://www.greekorthodox-alexandria.org/main.htm"]http://www.greekorthodox-alexandria.org/main.htm[/url]
Let me quote their main page:[quote]The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa extends its ecclesiastical jurisdiction to all the countries of the African continent. The first Bishop of the Orthodox Church in Africa was St. Mark the Evangelist who was the founder of the Orthodox faith in the African continent. It is through him that from his own up to the present time the Orthodox Church is recognized to be Apostolic.[/quote]or, if you'd like:[quote]Theodoros II sees himself as the spiritual guardian of the Greek Orthodox community. He was unanimously elected by the Synod of the Alexandrian Throne as Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa on 9 October 2004.[/quote]Now, it's your turn. Tell me where the Eastern Orthodox "admitted and accepted" that the See of Alexandria belonged to the Oriental Orthodox. This is my frustration: you make claims, I cite facts which totally disprove your claim, and then you get mad at me for not being respectful.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1268350' date='May 8 2007, 08:22 PM']No he wasn't, because St. Gregory spoke of St. Athanasius, who was Coptic Orthodox and spoke from personal experiences regarding.[/quote]Umm...yes, Eulogius was the successor of St. Athanasius, [b]according to St. Gregory[/b], who wrote in the sixth century. It seems like you would like to deny something I'm saying, but I'm not seeing it...the facts are pretty clear, too.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1268350' date='May 8 2007, 08:22 PM']There are numerous people, even those that claim to be Roman Catholic that don't validate your pope as having possession to the See of St. Peter, so it's a great comparision. There are even Protestants that believe they have the same authority of St. Peter, so as I'd pointed out, it's a great comparison.[/quote]These people deny the very existence of a Roman or Alexandrian See. Certainly, they are not claiming it for themselves.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1268350' date='May 8 2007, 08:22 PM']They havn't retained their faith and they're not Copts. The Coptic Catholic Church is a clone, a mimic of the real See of Mark and wasn't even affirmed until over 1000 years after the original was affirmed by St. Mark himself. You're acting as if the Roman Catholic Pope has more authority then St. Mark himself. They don't keep the traditions, because they deny that which St. Mark gave to the Church of Jesus Christ that he affirmed.[/quote]Umm...which traditions?

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1268350' date='May 8 2007, 08:22 PM']I did make that point, because it does present an obvious problem for Roman Catholics theology, along with the quotes from and about St. Athanasius also, and it wasn't said in malice, it was said in honesty. As I'd pointed out Aloysius's claims/disagreements regards to Copts is quite different then yours. You're searching for whatever conspiracy theories that you can find, to deny Copts the right to the See of St. Mark.[/quote]I'd call quoting from the Greek Orthodox's own website a little more than a pet "conspiracy theory." Yours are emotional responses, when the facts aren't in your favor.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1268350' date='May 8 2007, 08:22 PM']This discussion was supposed to be about dialog, and you've turned it into something else by denying Copts the most basic of honor that they are entitled to...[/quote]As you know, we are under no requirement to accept your source's claims without question. The fact that I question your claims and can disprove them is not a "insult" or "dishonorable." It is par for the course, in productive dialogue.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1268350' date='May 8 2007, 08:22 PM']I wouldn't be so absurd to insult Roman Catholics as such, as I ask that you stop your false claims of Copts[/quote]Of course you insult Catholics. You insult our belief in papal primacy and infallibility. You insult us by denying that we are made up of more than just the Roman Rite. You insult us by trying to rename us and our beliefs to fit your party line. If you find such behavior absurd, than stop these insults. Otherwise, continue disagreeing and stop the claims that every disagreement is an "insult."