The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 238 guests, and 46 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 9
T
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
T
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 9
Thanos888,

Originally Posted by Thanos888
I'm not here to debate anyone. I'm not here proselytizing my particular Church either.

You say you are not here to proselytize or debate, but you come to this forum repeating the same old tired cliches that have been answered over and over in the past.

Originally Posted by Thanos888
My apologies if I was not clear. I am all for Primacy within the Church. Whether one is catholic or orthodox, we have a hierarchy. There is leadership in the Church.

You are still not being clear- it seems that you are willing to accept that Rome has a Primacy, but the point you are missing is the nature of that primacy. As Catholics, we believe that the Primacy of the Roman Church is a divine primacy- instituted by Christ himself. Not just an arbitrary primacy that the whole church happens to agree to.

Originally Posted by Thanos888
However, what exactly, dearest brothers, would you expect the Coptic Church to do when the head of the Catholic Church excommunicates us openly during a mass over the filoque?
What could we have done?
Your emissary, in 1054, went to the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople and during the mass, placed the bull of excommunication on the alter.
His final words, after removing the sand from his sandals, before leaving the Church was something along the lines of 'let God judge my actions'...
So, you excommunicated us, and now we are being punished for being ex-communicated?

Furthermore, you are making claims that you cannot even make regarding your church. Didn't you say that you are a Coptic? If I'm not mistaken it was the eastern orthodox that were excommunicated in 1054, not the oriental orthodox. The oriental orthodox (in our view) became schismatic when they rejected the council of Chalcedon- which defined that Christ had TWO natures, hypostatically united in the person of Christ. Whether this was a linguistic issue (and a matter of misunderstanding) is a matter for the church to take up- but the fact remains that it was the eastern orthodox- whom the oriental orthodox already considered as heretical, who were excommunicated in 1054, not the oriental orthodox.

Originally Posted by Thanos888
If the Roman Catholic Church starts to add dogmas, left right and centre ...
If your pontiff goes off and creates dogmas that disagree with the Church fathers...

Statements like this incite debate- and so, you must substantiate your claims that dogmas were "created" by the Roman Catholic church.

Originally Posted by Thanos888
Your priests no longer get married...

St. Epiphanius (320 – 403)-
"he who leads a married life is not admitted by the Church to the order of Deacon, Priest, Bishop or sub-Deacon."[Haeres. 59, c. 4.]

St. Jerome (347 420)-
"Bishops, Priests and Deacons are chosen from virgins or widowers, or, at least, they remain perpetually chaste after being elevated to the priesthood."[Ep. ad Pammach.]
"You certainly admit that he cannot remain a Bishop who begets children in the episcopacy; for, if convicted, he will not be esteemed as a husband, but condemned as an adulterer."[Adv. Jovin., lib. 1.]
"What will the churches of the East, of Egypt and of the Apostolic See do, which adopt their clergy from among virgins, or if they have wives, they cease to live as married men."[Adv. Vigilantium.]

Thannos888- The primitive Church did not allow clergy to be married. If a married man was taken into the priesthood due to the scarcity of vocations among the unmarried- the canons of the church required them to live separated from their wives (or as brother and sister) after their ordination.This discipline was relaxed to some extent in the eastern church- but has always been the tradition in the west- it was the east that changed this discipline- not the west. If anything, perhaps the east never had/implemented this practice, but to go so far as to claim that the Roman Church changed is simply NOT true.

Originally Posted by Thanos888
... in some Churches you give the blood and the Body, and some others you give only the Body

Liturgical changes, provided the develop organically, are NOT out of the ordinary for the Church. How one receives the Body and Blood of our Lord, (whether in one species or both) is not a creation of a dogma- it is discipline. I can however, provide you with ample evidence that the Coptic Church changed its own liturgy- but the difference is that in this case, it was precisely because the members of your church DID change a Dogma.

If you examine the Trisarigon on all the rites of Christianity you will notice that the Oriental Church's have a modified Trisarigon. All the rest of the rites have:
"+Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal: have mercy on us."

Only in the oriental orthodox churches was it changed, and it remains changed to this very day.

"+Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, who was crucified for us, have mercy on us."

At first, it does not seem like a significant change. But what you must understand is to whom the Trisarigon is traditionally spoken to. It is an echo of the hymn of the Angels as they adore the All Holy Trinity in heaven. The Trisarigon, taken in its context in all the rites of christendom refers to The Holy Trinity.- And that is what it originally referred to even in the Coptic and oriental liturgies- but ever since the change took place in your liturgy there was some confusion- and now it refers to Christ only, and not the All Holy Trinity.

But why the change? DO you know why this change happened in your liturgy?

Because a priest named Peter the Fuller, protected by the current Emperor's son-in-law usrurped the Antiochian Patriarchal Throne for himself. He insighted an revolt against Chalcedon. In spite of the formulation of Chalcedon- he made his clergy sing " ...who was crucified for us, have mercy on us".

Peter the Fuller added this phrase to suite his novel newly created theology- A new Dogma he created. See, when Christ died on the Cross, we Chalcedonian Christians (Diphysites) say that Jesus died in his human nature only. But if we were 'monophysites'- that is, if we believed that Christ does not have 2 natures but only 1 nature- we cannot say that He died only in one nature, while his divine remained immortal- so we would have to say that his Divinity died- either that or he did not die at all. And since Christs Divinity is identical with that of His Father and the Holy Spirit- it would follow that the Holy Trinity died. At the time, there was a group from among the Oriental Orthodox called the that Theopaschites that actually believed that from Good Friday to Easter Sunday, there was no living God.

In order to avoid this blasphemy and heal the division made by this Patriarch Peter the Fuller- his successor, Kalandion, tried to compromise between the two Trisarigons making it explicit that the Trisarigon now referred to Christ only, and not the All Holy Trinity. He proposed the new Trisarigon:

"Holy God holy and strong holy and immortal Christ the King who wast crucified for us have mercy on us"

But the monophysites rejected this. More than anything else, the Monophysite Oriental orthodox's rejection of this compromise at the time really shows that they really did these profess the Theopaschite heresies.
Later, this anomoly in the Oriental liturgies became explained away as refering to christ only- a proposition which the early monophysits rejected. (note: the previous few parahraphs is a praphrase of pages 190-191 of "The lesser eastern churches" By Adrian Fortescue http://books.google.com/books?id=PS...=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Originally Posted by Thanos888
In some Churches in the RC you have become charismatic, in some others, there is so much traditionalism that even the traditionalist catholics RE-baptise anyone catholic wishing to become a traditionalist.

The Roman Catholic Church has clearly moved away from orthodoxy.

There indeed is a lot of trouble in the Roman Church today- but it does not follow that it has moved away from orthodoxy. The Roman Church is being attacked by the devil and his minions precisely because it has NOT moved from orthodoxy. The ONLY christian church in the WORLD that has not moved away from orthodoxy is the Roman Church and the eastern churches who are united to it. A simple proof of this is to look at how the various teachings of all other christians has changed regarding divorce and remarriage, and regarding birthcontroll. The Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthrodox churches have deviated on a very simple moral teaching- 'contraception is immoral and a grave sin'. Divorce is also considered acceptable (though very rare) in your church.

It seems pointless to me that you are quibbling about disciplines and liturgical norms when non Roman Catholic (and non EC's) churchs teach that contraception is licit.

Originally Posted by Thanos888
Was it REALLY worth excommunicating us over the procession of the Holy Spirit -whether He proceeds from the Father and the Son, or just through the Father?? Is it really worth it?


The filioque was not invented by the Roman Church. If you look, there is ample evidence that the western church always held this teaching, and that it also existed in the east in a similar fashion by the presence of "through the son" in various writings. One of the primary reasons for this excommunication was not only the filioque- certainly it contributed. But the immediate reason the excommunication took place was an issue of authority. The Patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated because he refused to acknowledge The Roman See's divine headship over the whole church. Again do read the article I posted above.
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm

I find it very Ironic that you are attributing this excommunication to your church, when your Church rejected the council of Chalcedon, which was the council that gave Constantinople its status as the new Rome after it was approved by the Pope of Rome.

Originally Posted by Thanos888
What could we do??

In 1741 a Coptic bishop in Jerusalem, Amba Athanasius, became a Catholic. There is now an Alexandrian Rite sui juris particular Church in full communion with the Pope. You should join them. There the liturgical and spiritual heretige of your Church is respected- but this way you can be in full communion with the Pope of Rome and fully integrated to the Church that Jesus Christ established.

Pax

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Enough, both of you! A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and the two of you combined are a perambulating catastrophe.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Quote
In 1741 a Coptic bishop in Jerusalem, Amba Athanasius, became a Catholic. There is now an Alexandrian Rite sui juris particular Church in full communion with the Pope. You should join them. There the liturgical and spiritual heretige of your Church is respected- but this way you can be in full communion with the Pope of Rome and fully integrated to the Church that Jesus Christ established.

Could I suggest something?

Seeing that you are from California, have you ever visited a Catholic Coptic parish? As I understand, there is one in the Los Angeles area.

You should do that and then visit a Coptic Orthodox parish to compare the two. There are many differences. Ask the Coptic Catholic parish about the differences and ask the Coptic Orthodox parish about the differences.

Also, ask the Coptic Catholic parish if they view themselves as the place where the Coptic Orthodox need to to convert to.

And ask the Coptic Orthodox parish how faithful they feel the Coptic Catholic parish is to the Coptic tradition.

In my experience in discussions with Coptic Orthodox many of them feel the Coptic Catholics have a long way to go in fully respecting "the liturgical and spiritual heritage" of the Coptic Church.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Quote
Also, ask the Coptic Catholic parish if they view themselves as the place where the Coptic Orthodox need to to convert to.

Never mind that--ask the Holy See the same question.

In the Ravenna Statement (to which the Coptic Orthodox Church was not a party, but to which it applies anyway) the Catholic Church rejected uniatism as a modality for reconciliation, and acknowledged that the Orthodox Churches are fully sufficient for the salvation of their members. The Catholic Church foreswore at that time all actions that might even hint at proselytism, because it does not seek submission or assimilation, but true communion in the Holy Spirit.

Loverofwisdom is acting in a manner contrary to the policy and desires of the Holy See, whose primacy he claims to be upholding through his act of disobedience. Aside from that, I don't think anyone with an iota of sense could possibly be persuaded by his rather simplistic and ahistorical understanding of the Roman primacy, the Petrine Ministry and the relationship of the Church of Rome to other apostolic Churches.

While I do not agree with Thanos888, either (he attributes to the Catholic Church a number of beliefs or positions it either never held or has since repudiated), he has more of the argument on his side.

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Quote
You should join them.

Very nice.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by DTBrown
Could I suggest something?

... ask the Coptic Catholic parish if they view themselves as the place where the Coptic Orthodox need to to convert to.
A good question. Since I don't have the opportunity to ask, I'd like to know the expected answer. But let me also form and ask a corresponding question, wanting also to know its expected answer:

Ask the Coptic Orthodox parish if they view themselves as the place where the Coptic Catholic need to convert to.

Likewise:

Originally Posted by StuartK
In the Ravenna Statement... the Catholic Church ... acknowledged that the Orthodox Churches are fully sufficient for the salvation of their members.

Is that an accurate characterization of the Ravenna Statement? In any case, in a corresponding way, can it be said:

In the Ravenna Statement (or elsewhere or in some way)... the Orthodox Churches ... acknowledged that the Catholic Churche(s) is/(are) fully sufficient for the salvation of its/(their) members.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Fr. Deacon Tony asked:

Quote
Ask the Coptic Orthodox parish if they view themselves as the place where the Coptic Catholic need to convert to.

I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if you are more likely to get a "yes" reply from the Coptic Orthodox parish than the Coptic Catholic parish.

My purpose in framing the questions was to point out to member Theloveofwisdom that many Eastern Catholic parishes (such as the Coptic Catholic parish) are likely to be very uncomfortable with telling a person from a corresponding Orthodox jurisdiction (such as the Coptic Orthodox) that they need to join their parish. There are various reasons for this, I believe.

I am hoping that Theloveofwisdom would get to know both parishes (Catholic Coptic and Catholic Orthodox) before he would make such a statement ("You should join them") again.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Quote
In the Ravenna Statement (or elsewhere or in some way)... the Orthodox Churches ... acknowledged that the Catholic Churche(s) is/(are) fully sufficient for the salvation of its/(their) members.

The statement in Ravenna is reciprocal: both Churches acknowledge the sufficiency of the other. Those Orthodox Churches that endorsed Ravenna endorsed that statement, too. In any case, what the Orthodox do or don't do does not affect what we do or don't do.

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
In the Ravenna Statement (or elsewhere or in some way)... the Orthodox Churches ... acknowledged that the Catholic Churche(s) is/(are) fully sufficient for the salvation of its/(their) members.

The statement in Ravenna is reciprocal: both Churches acknowledge the sufficiency of the other. Those Orthodox Churches that endorsed Ravenna endorsed that statement, too. In any case, what the Orthodox do or don't do does not affect what we do or don't do.
Where in the Revenna Statement is this acknowledgment found?

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Sorry, I actually meant Balamand.


Quote
13) In fact, especially since the Pan-Orthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the rediscovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to His Church—profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops—cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches. In this context it is clear that rebaptism must be avoided.

15) While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remains secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation. There is a question of achieving together the will of Christ for His own and the design of God for His Church by means of a common quest by the Churches for a full accord on the content of the faith and its implications. This effort is being carried on in the current theological dialogue. The present document is a necessary stage in this dialogue.

18) Towards this end, Pope Paul VI affirmed in his address at the Phanar in July 1967: "It is on the heads of the Churches, of their hierarchy, that the obligation rests to guide the Churches along the way that leads to finding full communion again. They ought to do this by recognizing and respecting each other as pastors of that part of the flock of Christ entrusted to them, by taking care for the cohesion and growth of the people of God, and avoiding everything that could scatter it or cause confusion in its ranks" (Tomos Agapis, n. 172). In this spirit Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I together stated clearly: "We reject every form of proselytism, every attitude which would be or could be perceived to be a lack of respect" (7 December 1987).

22) Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church. Within these perspectives, so that there will no longer be room for mistrust and suspicion, it is necessary that there be reciprocal exchanges of information about various pastoral projects and that thus cooperation between bishops and all those with responsibilities in our Churches can be set in motion and develop.

25) Furthermore, the necessary respect for Christian freedom— one of the most precious gifts received from Christ—should not become an occasion for undertaking a pastoral project which may also involve the faithful of other Churches, without previous consultation with the pastors of these Churches. Not only should every form of pressure, of any kind whatsoever, be excluded, but respect for consciences, motivated by an authentic exigency of faith, is one of the principles guiding the pastoral concern of those responsible in the two Churches and should be the object of their common reflection (cf. Galations 5:13).

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 150
T
Member
OP Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 150
Hi everyone,

First of all, I looked at my previous post, and I realised there's a mistake: I meant to say that we are NOT innovators of dogmas, but rather custodians of it.

The only point I was making was that the Coptic Orthodox Church has a mandate to keep the teachings of the Church Father.

Look, you cannot deny that your Church has lost some sort of spiritual tradition:

Let's take for example the Eucharist - explain this: Why is it in the mass the priest prays on a Host and yet distributes to the congregation other smaller hosts that were not part of the host he ate from.

Do you see what I mean?

Look, all these are ultimately problems that can be solved ... im sure but I just want u to know that to win Orthodox over to the Catholic Church, the following would be required:

a) Returning back to the correct spiritual traditions
(Mass with Blood & Body!)

b) No more charismatic movements - no talking in tongues, no people being slain in spirit

c) Correct dogmas -

1) The Filoque
2) The immaculate conception

Both of these are becoming more or less like the Orthodox's definitions, but it needs to become officialized.

3) Purgatory.

None of these really matter to me. If purgatory exists - great. LUCKY US! if it doesn't exist, Oh DEAR! Who knows??

I think the Orthodox Church recognize Christ's words to the good thief when He said to him "Tonight, you shall be with me in Paradise"

It means that his repentance, his faith and his suffering and death with Christ on the Cross was enough to put him through to Paradise. There was no time spent for him in some place paying for sins. This is quite a big issue.

Look, Please don't tell me i'm quibbling here. I love the RC. I really do. Some days I wake up and I wish I was catholic. You're lovely people, and even your Church today is wonderful.

However, what can I do? These issues don't make sense to me.

What I wanted to say also was that your Church has changed / added dogmas.. for example: the Filoque - I mean.. why on earth did you add this for? We CANNOT, for the life of us, start adding/changing dogmas.. you see??

PLEASE do not see this post as an attack.. on the contrary, I WISH for unity between you a lot, but I'm describing the obstacles facing us.

As for priests being celibate, that's great.. we have priests that are celibate and some that are married. THose that are celibate CAN become bishops (ONE DAY), those that are married can only become proto-priests (senior priests) - but that's it.

Concerning the issue with the Coptic Catholic Church, it doesnt make much sense to me why there is a Coptic Catholic Church in the USA - why don't they just attend ANY catholic church in the USA?? Strange... the BEST thing about the Catholic Church is that a Catholic Christian is not united to his brother/sister by culture... what unites you IS Jesus Christ... not because members speak a certain language. This is what I dislike about many Orthodox Churches - sometimes you find it is more like a cultural centre... especially the Greek Orthodox Church.

A lot of Coptic Catholic Churches have our rites in them.. they are SO close to us in how their mass is - the hymns, the lectionary etc. - these all came from the Coptic Orthodox Church, but are being used by them.

Ultimately, what Im trying to say is - concerning the primacy of Saint Peter, is that - I DONT MIND if Saint Peter IS the head of the Church.. but the patriarchate of Alexandria CANNOT join a Church by compromising on dogmatic issues.

We only recognize 3 councils:

Nicea,
Ephesus
Constantinople.

That's it.

I think you guys are up to vatican II?? That's what I meant when I said that we are NOT innovators. We don't innovate ANYTHING.

Besides, as far as I was aware, given that Saint Mark was a disciple of Saint Peter, by virtue of that, it sort of makes us closer to you than you think.

Please forgive me if I offended anyone here. Don't be angry with me. I'm NOT attacking your Church. I love it. Even with the differences, its a lovely Church. I gain a lot in the RC. I'm just being frank about the problems concerning unity.

DOn't attack the messenger!!

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 150
T
Member
OP Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 150
StuartK,

I love the Catholic Church, and many Coptic Christians also. I think many Greek and Russian also. Especially in Europe. Your church is WONDERFUL.

Please understand, it is out of love for it, I'm telling you what the problems are! I don't have this love for the protestant, the evangelical, NOR the non denominationalists.

I'm telling you the mindset of the Coptic Christian - how we view things.

Our Patriarch is Saint Athanasious the Apostolic.. the 22nd POPE OF THE CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA. He wrote the Catholic faith AND the Coptic Creed also. He was our Pope. When he wrote it, the filoque was not mentioned in there. You added this.

I'm just being open with the problems here.

For the immaculate conception, to us, Saint Mary is a Saint, She is pure and Holy in everything, so we don't mind what you say - she appeared in our Church in a FULL BLOWN MEGA apparition in Zeitun. I doubt if we had the wrong faith, or if we were heretical, that the mother of God would have appeared and being the pivotal point that caused MANY to believe in Christ as God, INCLUDING muslims.

In fact, the Coptic Church prides herself in the fact that the apparition of Saint Mary is the only televised apparition of the Holy Virgin. If you want pictures, check out zeitun.org or google "Virgin Mary Zeitun" and see it for yourselves. Muslims were 1st to see her.

I go to the RC when I can, and I enjoy it very much. I've helped evangelise people to join the Roman Catholic Church even.

Look, if someone said to me that they've discovered Christ and wants to be baptised, and they've chosen the Roman Catholic Church, i would not only be happy for them, I'd be a bit envious, if it was in a country like Italy or France. I wouldn't feel this way if it was the protestant Church. I'd try to explain to the importance of sacraments, the importance of priesthood, the importance of the Eucharist.. etc.

I hope I've made my position and intentions clear.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
I should think that before one attacks or criticizes a Church (and people here will tell you I am not shy about taking just about everyone to task now and again), don't you think you should at least be able to state accurately what that Church believes and teaches? Because, if you will pardon me, many of your statements about the Latin Church are seriously off the mark--and some verge on caricatures of Latin beliefs and practices.

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 150
T
Member
OP Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 150
StuartK,

Im not attacking OR criticizing the Church at all! Where have I criticized it? I'm just pointing out the issues that as far as I can see are stopping unity.

You teach that there is purgatory - it is a place for purification of our souls. This was explained to me by many Catholic priests.

I'm not disputing it, I'm just thinking aloud: the Good thief on the Cross, did he spend time in purgatory? He stole from people that may not have forgiven him; however, through his repetance, he had immediately qualified for direct entry into Paradise with our Lord.

What is so "off the mark" about that statement?

Concerning the dogmas of your Church:

Saint Athanasious (our 22nd Patriarch - Pope of Alexandria) wrote the Nicene Creed. He didnt add the part of the Filoque in there.
Your Church added this in 1054.

What is so "off the mark" about that statement?

None of this is criticism. I'm just pointing out the issues that seem to be blocking unity between us. That's all.

If you think I've missed something, or I have been inaccurate in my understanding of our differences, then would you also think the same of our Bishops who have been opposed to unity for the same reasons?

Do you think maybe they have been also "off the mark" with their understanding also??

I used to think that the issue of the filoque was not of great importance - but then after a lot of research, it turns out that to the Coptic Orthodox Church, this is of grave importance.

I'd like to summarize my point of view here before this thread goes in all directions:

* There are some dogmatic differences between us. These differences are beginning to fade away with dialogue. A good example is that of the immaculate conception. The definition of this is NOT what it was 50 years ago.
* Therefore, in tackling the issue of the Primacy of Saint Peter, it would be wise to iron out the dogmatic differences FIRST because this is what is holding back unity. The Coptic Orthodox Church, although I cannot speak on her behalf, I know it is hindered by any dogmatic innovations AFTER the 3rd Council.
Primacy is fine - so long as your Holy Pontiff at least shares the same faith and dogmas as the orthodox church.


Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by StuartK
Do not fall into the trap of defining primacy in terms of jurisdiction. Primacy in the early Church worked on entirely different principles.

In my book, we should go back to those rules; it would certainly resolve many of the issues on this matter. Dump the outcome of Vat I.


Thanos, you are in error to say the Creed of Nicaea was written by good ol' Athy. In reality it is a modification of the baptismal creed of Caesarea in Palestine and I believe Eusebius of Caesarea offered it to serve as the model for our Creed. You more correctly could say that ol' Athy (Athanasius) edited the text of the Caesarean Creed.

Last edited by johnzonaras; 11/07/10 05:19 PM.
Page 3 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Moderated by  Irish Melkite 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5