Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.7K
- General Category 10.8K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 367
- Technical Topics 367
Pope Benedicts Statement on Orthodoxy
Today (July 10, 2007) Pope Benedict the 16th released a 16 page document
It declared that churches outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus christ
in specific, he stated that churches were "suffering from a wound"
the Coptic Orthodox Church Knows that the Oriental Orthodox have been unchanged since the time of the apostles
this makes the Oriental orthodox the oldest living church that exists to date
What do you think this means to the Orthodox?
What are your comments on the document?
Please post any evidence to prove this incorrect?
It declared that churches outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus christ
in specific, he stated that churches were "suffering from a wound"
the Coptic Orthodox Church Knows that the Oriental Orthodox have been unchanged since the time of the apostles
this makes the Oriental orthodox the oldest living church that exists to date
What do you think this means to the Orthodox?
What are your comments on the document?
Please post any evidence to prove this incorrect?
Comments
Today (July 10, 2007) Pope Benedict the 16th released a 16 page document
It declared that churches outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus christ
in specific, he stated that churches were "suffering from a wound"
the Coptic Orthodox Church Knows that the Oriental Orthodox have been unchanged since the time of the apostles
this makes the Oriental orthodox the oldest living church that exists to date
What do you think this means to the Orthodox?
What are your comments on the document?
Please post any evidence to prove this incorrect?
can u provide the link of the document.
It was Originally written in latin
this is the Current English Translation
I originally heard of this topic from a CNN article, than began to look into it
question 4 refers to Orthodox
question 5 refers to Protestant
Perhaps, also, it means that the changes to the Catholic Church are seen not to detract the Spirit and Truth of the Gospel, but one were Church autonomy was guided by the Holy Ghost.Whatever changes happened, it was consistent with the will of God for His Church.
the Coptic Orthodox Church Knows that the Oriental Orthodox have been unchanged since the time of the apostles
this makes the Oriental orthodox the oldest living church that exists to date
isn't the Coptic Orthodox Church the oldest church since 22 A.D
but i agree with everything that "Doubting Thomas" said... he will of coarse say that the Roman church is not in error. It's thier belief...
"It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature". However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches"
these Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches
It's obviously saying that we are lacking or in essence "incomplete" in our sacraments
no, we are not the oldest church that exists
the oldest official church is the armenian orthodox church
we're in the same orthodox as they are
I differ to those who say that it means nothing
the schisms in the church are not things that we wish to continue
the coptic synod has actually been trying to fix such diversions with our brothers the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic churches
this could greatly hurt our cooperation
Perhaps the significance is that the view has not changed- but there was no real reason why it would suddenly do so. And I think the Catholic Church has played a substantial role in Ecunemerism. This is not backward document, neither is it very forward- but it is their honest understanding. This is not an arrogant document, but these schisms exist- we all acknowledge it, and it is explaining why they do.
In hindsight, it provides nothing new except a reminder that things are the same.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/10/pope.churches.reut/index.html
He is saying we (the Orthodox Churches) are wounded, and to a greater extent the protestant Churches. His argument is that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Saint Peter, and that person is the head of the Church established by Christ? If he's so proud of that relationship, how come his church is in a right mess??
I don't understant what he wants!!!! in 1054, the RC bishop excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople DURING the mass in Hagia Sophia. For what? Cos of the Filoque. Is this the action of someone responsible for the worldwide Christian community? To excommunicate someone for not subscribing to heresies, and for keeping the faith???? What a way to treat your "brother" in Christ. To excommunicate them for not accepting false doctrine!? Even if it was true, (LET's say for arguments sake) - should u excommunicate the entire eastern Christians and their leaders for this???
Like I said, the Church is the Bride of Christ. Christ cannot have 2 brides. One of us is an imposter, and its definately not us; so, i wonder who the imposter is then if its not them either!??
Thomas is correct in saying that there is nothing new in this. If one reads Cardinal Ratzinger's 'Dominus Iesus' (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html) it is exactly the same line, and, as Thomas says, that is bound to be the case; as he points out, we believe something rather similar about the Roman Catholics.
Real ecumenical dialogue is only possible when we acknowledge the differences which divide us. There is no doubt that the events of Vatican I in the nineteenth century made the divisions between the Catholic Church and other Christians deeper; driven by fear of the growth of liberalism and nationalism, and in an attempt to hold on to spiritual and secular power, the Vatican promulgated the notion of Papal Infallibility; many Catholics at the time were deeply dismayed, and even today, there are Catholics who are unhappy with this.
Much will depend on how the Romans define 'supremacy'; if they insist that their bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is infallible when he speaks on doctrine, then there will never be full Christian unity; the plain fact is that most of the Christians in the world do not believe this and are never going to.
To insist on that is like the EO Church insisting we all accept the 7 Ecumenical Councils (or was it 8?); well, that's not happening any time soon either, not least because our Church recognised neither Chalcedon nor the following ones as anything more than local councils. So, insisting on such things is often a way of avoiding saying 'I don't believe in unity'.
I respect Pope Benedict's honesty. It is easier to talk to people when you know where they stand. If you note, he draws a distinction between the Orthodox and the Protestant Churches. Our answer would be that it was not the Oriental Orthodox Churches who accepted Chalcedon and tried to force others to conform to it at the point of the sword; nor was it us who rejected the various attempts to reunite the divided Church; neither were we responsible for the further divisions of 1054 or those of the so-called reformation. We have simply held to the Faith as once given.
We can respect the historic Church of Rome, and we can feel sorrow at its various additions to the Faith and hope that a fuller understanding between us will reveal that the gaps are not as wide as is sometimes stated. We can do the same thing with the Eastern Orthodox. We can forgive the Byzantine Church for its persecutions, and we can forgive the Russian Church its pretensions in saying that a Church which was ancient when the Russians were still worshipping pagan idols should 'submit' to their understanding of a Faith which our Fathers defined. We can forgive the Protestant attempts to 'convert' those who brought Christianity to their own home countries. Equally, we can pray for unity and work for good fellowship. But, founded by St. Mark, and the home of St. Athanasius who saved the world from becoming Arian, and St. Cyril, who saved it from becoming Nestorian, the Coptic Church knows itself to be part of that family of Oriental Orthodox Churches who have added nothing to the Faith and subtracted nothing from it. It does not mean that we cannot learn from others, and it certainly does not mean that we should show enmity to others; but we are secure in our ancient history.
We can thank the Bishop of Rome for his honesty and his goodwill, and reciprocate.
In Christ,
Anglian
Dear QT,
Thomas is correct in saying that there is nothing new in this. If one reads Cardinal Ratzinger's 'Dominus Iesus' (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html) it is exactly the same line, and, as Thomas says, that is bound to be the case; as he points out, we believe something rather similar about the Roman Catholics.
Real ecumenical dialogue is only possible when we acknowledge the differences which divide us. There is no doubt that the events of Vatican I in the nineteenth century made the divisions between the Catholic Church and other Christians deeper; driven by fear of the growth of liberalism and nationalism, and in an attempt to hold on to spiritual and secular power, the Vatican promulgated the notion of Papal Infallibility; many Catholics at the time were deeply dismayed, and even today, there are Catholics who are unhappy with this.
Much will depend on how the Romans define 'supremacy'; if they insist that their bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is infallible when he speaks on doctrine, then there will never be full Christian unity; the plain fact is that most of the Christians in the world do not believe this and are never going to.
To insist on that is like the EO Church insisting we all accept the 7 Ecumenical Councils (or was it 8?); well, that's not happening any time soon either, not least because our Church recognised neither Chalcedon nor the following ones as anything more than local councils. So, insisting on such things is often a way of avoiding saying 'I don't believe in unity'.
I respect Pope Benedict's honesty. It is easier to talk to people when you know where they stand. If you note, he draws a distinction between the Orthodox and the Protestant Churches. Our answer would be that it was not the Oriental Orthodox Churches who accepted Chalcedon and tried to force others to conform to it at the point of the sword; nor was it us who rejected the various attempts to reunite the divided Church; neither were we responsible for the further divisions of 1054 or those of the so-called reformation. We have simply held to the Faith as once given.
We can respect the historic Church of Rome, and we can feel sorrow at its various additions to the Faith and hope that a fuller understanding between us will reveal that the gaps are not as wide as is sometimes stated. We can do the same thing with the Eastern Orthodox. We can forgive the Byzantine Church for its persecutions, and we can forgive the Russian Church its pretensions in saying that a Church which was ancient when the Russians were still worshipping pagan idols should 'submit' to their understanding of a Faith which our Fathers defined. We can forgive the Protestant attempts to 'convert' those who brought Christianity to their own home countries. Equally, we can pray for unity and work for good fellowship. But, founded by St. Mark, and the home of St. Athanasius who saved the world from becoming Arian, and St. Cyril, who saved it from becoming Nestorian, the Coptic Church knows itself to be part of that family of Oriental Orthodox Churches who have added nothing to the Faith and subtracted nothing from it. It does not mean that we cannot learn from others, and it certainly does not mean that we should show enmity to others; but we are secure in our ancient history.
We can thank the Bishop of Rome for his honesty and his goodwill, and reciprocate.
In Christ,
Anglian
All this mess came about because for them, Christ is telling Saint Peter :"You are the rock on which I will build my Church". How do we interpret it? They took it as St Peter is given the awesome role of being the head of the Church.
[coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic] There is a subtle nuance in the Greek that people often overlook. It is true that the Roman Catholics say that Peter is the 'rock' on which Christ will 'build [His] Church'. However, if you look at the original Greek, that is not the case. Here is the original Greek: Here is the English: Now I have bolded two word in it: πετρος which is 'Peter' and πετρα which is 'rock'. The rock Christ is speaking of, and the Church teaches, is the rock of Faith (i.e. Peter's confession) not Peter himself. If I recall correctly, petros (πετρος) not only means Peter, but it also means 'stone' whereas petra (πετρα) means 'rock'. Thus, Peter is only a fragment (i.e. a stone) from the Rock that is Christ. Basically, Christ was using a play on words here which is lost in the English.
That's a fantastic explanation.
Well put!
But as a Coptic Christian, would you think that its best that we do have ONE church leader? or is it best to have many??
I agree with Thomas. If Christ had only wanted one leader for the Church, He would have only appointed 1 disciple and not had 12. There's something to be had in unity without uniformity, and I think Christ recognizes our diversity and wants us to express it within the One Lord, One Faith and One Baptism of the One Church of God.
Indeed, and we need to remember that even the Apostles were not immune from in-fighting and disputes - and we can see at the Council of Jerusalem how St. Peter has to come back into line and effectively apologise for backsliding on the issue of how far Christians should have to conform to Jewish customs. Few things are clearer than the communal nature of authority in the early Church.
Historical accident is at the root of the Roman claims. The Western Roman Empire fell into decay much earlier, and the structure of society there was largely rural, urban centres were few, and literacy very limited indeed; there were few centres of learning and of authority. In this climate it was east to see why Rome and the Vatican ended up taking on the position of supreme authority; west of Rome it was necessary. Eastwards, in the homeland of Christianity, things were different. A highly urbanised and highly literate society had a number of sources of power and authority, and as we can see from the early Councils, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and, eventually, Constantinople, all had authority in their own areas. It was only with splits after Chalcedon and the Arab conquests, which removed Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem from contention, that the bipolarity of Constantinople and Rome came about - and only with the fall of Constantinople in 1453 that Rome could effectively claim to speak for Christendom.
It is true that by that time the Russians had been Christian for nearly 400 years, but few outside of Kiev took much notice of what the Slavs thought, and Kievan Rus was hardly a cultural or intellectual powerhouse to match Rome.
Thus it was that, mainly thanks to the Muslim dominance of Christianity's heartland, that Rome came to be able to persuade herself and others that she spoke for Christendom; and within a hundred years large parts of north and western Europe were beginning to declare that she did not speak for them.
As Κηφᾶς shows, the text which the Romans use has to be interpreted in a very peculiar way to bear the weight they want it to bear.
All of that said, we should be prepared to recognise that the early Church did concede a primacy of honour to Rome - but that is not what Rome has been claiming since the first Vatican Council.
In Christ,
Anglian
Of course I disagree with his conclusion (I do not believe the RC to be the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church), but I am pleased to see him engaging in a far more honest and constructive manner than that of many ecumenists who simply tip-toe around major issues and pretend differences do not exist.
Our churches have much in common, and we should celebrate this fact, but it is our differences that continue to divide us and, as Anglian said, real and constructive dialogue is only possible when we recognise those differences.
How can a wound be treated if you pretend it isn't there?
It's simple history that Orthodoxy is the real Church; this is undisputable. It's hard to put into words what should happen...but they should simply just accept Orthodoxy. It will be like before, with the different Patriarchs overseeing different areas of the world.
As for Protestants...how would we even approach them? Their ideas have become so radical and their heads have become hardened. How would we convince them to come to the True Faith?
I doubt even that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches will be joined. There are just too many factors that are in the way of such a great event.
All that we can do is pray that God will show them the Right Way.
Please pray for my weakness.
The Truth cannot be grasped academically, philosophically or even logically. It is revealed by the Holy Spirit through the Lord Christ to unite us with God. Our Church's distinction from the other denominations and religions is exactly this outlook to the Faith that made great intellectual people like Athanasius or Dioscoros, Shenouti or Severus, rely on their spirituality rather than on their academic understanding and theological studies.
If we were to take a stranger from the street (a non-Christian, to remove all sources of prejudice or bias) and show him/her a diagram of the various schisms with a brief, unbiased explanation of each written by a historian, they would be able to tell which deviated from the original Faith.
The problem with the Catholic Church is that it was involved in too many political issues. The filoque was political. The reason Protestants exist, among others, is because the Pope charged for absolution.
To be fair, the fact that Copts can't go to Jerusalem is also political. But, does this cause huge schisms? No. Does it deviate the congregation from the True Faith? No.
It is simply unacceptable for a certain church to say that they are better than every other church. Where is the love that Jesus gave to us. I really mean it where is the love.
Indeed, where is the love? Where is the love for Truth among those who embrace and tolerate heresy? Where is the love for Christ among those who say that His Church, His Body, is no better than man-made organisations? Where is the love for ones neighbour among those who possess the Light yet encourage their brother to remain in darkness for fear of causing offence?
I sometimes wonder whether the Orthodox Churches have any idea of what it is like to have taken the Faith to all parts of this world?
The notion that the Church can always be kept away from the state is not one which the Byzantine, Russian or Greek experiences suggests is always possible; even in Egypt, the actions of the state impact upon the Church.
The Orthodox Churches have, historically, been closely related to particular ethnicities, and we have, none of us, anything like the global reach of Catholicism. This must impose particular problems, the like of which few OCs have had to deal with. The idea that the many millions of the world's Catholics have all been led astray would surely suggest something rather odd about the workings of the Holy Spirit? Has He really confined Himself to the Copts, or the Greeks or the Russians? If our ecclesiology suggests that the answer to this is 'yes', then I wonder whether we don't need a better ecclesiology?
How much missionary activity do the OCs engage in? What are we doing to bring His word to those who have not yet heard it? When we are doing a fraction of what the Protestants and the Catholics are doing, then we shall indeed be showing whose children we are?
When we say that the Catholic Church 'changes', it would say that it develops - and we ourselves acknowledge the idea that doctrine develops - you won't find our present doctrine of the Trinity explicitly in the early Church, nor yet the doctrine of the Trinity as it developed by St. Cyril's time. Of course, with the Coptic Church having to devote all its energy to survive under Muslim onslaughts, and with the EOs persecuted first by the Ottomans and then by the Soviets, there has not always been much energy to devote to the sort of theological discussion that characterised Alexandria in St. Cyril's day.
We must not mistake the Church for a museum. He commanded us to preach The Word to all - and we cannot simply expect others to become Copts, Russians or Greeks in order to meet their Lord; at least we can expect it, but if we do, we shouldn't be surprised if few outside our own communities agree with us.
In Christ,
Anglian
However, the RC church in England has always been an Irish ghetto (since the early 19th cent)and is increasingly a Polish one. Also, the RC church has abandoned asceticism. The Church through the ages has fasted during lent and during other times.'Fish on Friday' was a well known form of abstinence,now gone. They have been influenced by protestantism about 400 years too late!
Two interesting points - both the ethnicity of the Orthodox and the want of asceticism in the RC Church.
I wonder if the latter is true in other parts of the world? The former certainly seems to be.
It would be so good if the Apostolic Churches could listen each to the other - have none of them anything to learn from each other?
In Christ,
Anglian
[quote author=Αντωνιοσ link=topic=5542.msg78830#msg78830 date=1193459790]
Of course they beleive the same...but they are blind! Look at how they have lost their traditions...the other day, one of the big leaders of the Church was calling for a huge reform of the whole Church. They want perpetual change - why? God does not change. He does not demand new doctrines to be created every 100 years and so on. Christianity is best left in a pure form - The Oriental Orthodox Churches. We defended against all of the heretics and their words of blasphemy, and yet we are not 'full churches of Jesus christ'. Some audacity indeed!
They would argue that we are blind as well. Your bias for the Coptic Church is apparent, which is why you don't seem to be willing to look at it from the other side. You speak of perpetual change, and the constancy of God. You are absolutely correct, God does not change, but our understanding of Him does. As one delves deeper into their spiritual life, they come to a deeper understanding of God. Thus it is we who change and not God. This deeper understanding of God is reflected in the development of doctrine. Now, as far as we're concerned, certain aspects of Coptic doctrine and dogma have been fixed since the third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus. For the Eastern Orthodox, it has been fixed since the seventh Council at Nicea. For the Catholics, things may or may not have ended. The fact is, we all have a bias towards our individual Church, and unity will not occur if we continue to harp on our differences, but first come together by agreeing on some common ground. That is the first step and then working on differences is next. As far as I know, this is what the different hierarchies of the Churches have been doing.
[quote author=Αντωνιοσ link=topic=5542.msg78830#msg78830 date=1193459790]
If we were to take a stranger from the street (a non-Christian, to remove all sources of prejudice or bias) and show him/her a diagram of the various schisms with a brief, unbiased explanation of each written by a historian, they would be able to tell which deviated from the original Faith.
This scenario will never occur. All people are inherently biased as are all historical sources. Which is why I agree with Stavro when he says: Only by praying and fasting together, can our churches ever be united. It is God who will bring us together not we ourselves.