Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 426
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 295
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 607
- Hymns 2.6K
- Hymns Discussion 2.6K
- Technicial Difficulties 369
- Technical Topics 369
link
can someonhe please send me a link to a topic on the difference between catholics and us
thanks need it befor tomorow
thanks need it befor tomorow
Comments
http://www.stmark-la.com/book.html
Here you go.
http://www.stmark-la.com/book.html
"The year 1054 marks one of the tragedies in the history of the Church of Christ. It was the time when the venerable Church of Rome separated from the one, Holy, catholic and apostolic church..." - Father Markos Hannah
I as a member of the Patriarchate of Constantinople would certainly agree with the above statement, but I am astounded that a Coptic Orthodox priest can write such a thing.
The schism between Rome and the Coptic Church is not dated to 1054 but to 451 when Pope Dioscoros of Alexandria excommunicated Pope Leo of Rome because of the latter's friendliness with the heretic Theodoret of Cyrus, and his refusal to accept his condemnation by the Council of Ephesus in 449 (something the Fathers at Chalcedon did do until Theodoret finally declared Nestorius a heretic).
1054, on the other hand, marks the date when the Pope of Rome (or rather, his delegate, since the Pope was in fact dead) excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. In 1054 both Rome and Constantinople had not been in communion with the Coptic Church for 600 years, so I'm not sure what Fr. Markos was suggesting with this statement.
I wouldn't read too much into it. An unfortunate yet sad truth is the apparent lack of education/scholarship in the Coptic Church, even amongst her clergy. Piety seems to be the primary and exclusive agenda and goal of most Copts (myself excluded). Consequently, there is often blatant ignorance or a reductionist miscomprehension of the division between our Churches at 451 A.D.
My educated guess is that Fr. Hanna simply read a secondary text on the 11th century schism which probably referred to the Eastern Orthodox Church with the unqualified "Orthodox Church", and that he consequently just innocently assumed that such was a reference to the Oriental Orthodox Church. Most Copts have probably never heard of the title "Oriental Orthodox", and simply know themselves to be part of "the Orthodox Church". The obvious reason for this is that the OO title only really serves any purpose or use in ecumenical discussions.
Orthodox11,
I wouldn't read too much into it. An unfortunate yet sad truth is the apparent lack of education/scholarship in the Coptic Church, even amongst her clergy. Piety seems to be the primary and exclusive agenda and goal of most Copts (myself excluded). Consequently, there is often blatant ignorance or a reductionist miscomprehension of the division between our Churches at 451 A.D.
My educated guess is that Fr. Hanna simply read a secondary text on the 11th century schism which probably referred to the Eastern Orthodox Church with the unqualified "Orthodox Church", and that he consequently just innocently assumed that such was a reference to the Oriental Orthodox Church.
The thing I don't understand is that Fr. Hanna discusses the different in expressions of Christology that led partly to the schism in 451, he aknowledges that the "Coptic Orthodox Church was not represented in any of the above mentioned councils" (Chalcedon to II Nicea), he also talks about persecution of Copts for two centuries "by their western Christian brothers for renouncing the council of Chalcedon, from 451 AD till 641 AD" - so how then can he be ignorant of the fact that the schism between Rome and the Copts did not happen in 1054 but in 541?
I'm sure an acomplished scholar like H.H. Pope Shenouda would be pretty horrified at this book, which states that it is "a fruit of: His Holiness Pope Shenouda III’s teachings." This I understand. I have yet to meet an Eastern Orthodox person who refers to him/herself as such unless it is in the context of ecumenical dialogue.
What makes it even more confusing is the fact that Eastern and Oriental is the same word ??? I guess we'll just have to live with it ;)
According to proper ecclesiology, the very existence of a schism has grave ecclesiological implications regardless of whether the schism was promoted by actual or just apparent doctrinal conflict. He probably either fails to realise, or consciously rejects this understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology.
Calm down guys.
I don't think this comment was necessary. Orthodox11 and I are having a reasonable discussion on an issue significant enough to warrant such a discussion in the first place. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "simple", but if you are implying that it is trivial, it most certainly isn't. It is a most significant mistake. Where can this edition be found? I have not heard of it.
Again, far be it from me to trivialize important matters in Church history and theology. I think that Fr. Markos in his attempt to briefly discuss the schism has fallen into the trap of oversimplification. Many readers are turned off by long polemical (is that even a word?) discussions of the Council of Chalcedon. Since this was not the focus of this work, I believe the writer wanted to write a brief discussion and by doing ignored the implications of the schism itself
Given the fact that inter-orthodox dialogue has shown that the two Churches do in fact share the same Christology (the difference being in how it is expressed) I can understand why he might think like this, but, as you say: My guess is the second one. It is no doubt a symptom of the Ecumenist disease that seems to have infected both our churches.
I also wanted to ask you about the joint decleration regarding the lifting of anathemas. From what I read in the declaration it seemed like lifting the anathemas would be sufficient to restore communion.
I found this to be a rediculous proposal - surely there cannot be unity when the two sides recognise a differing number of Ecumenical Councils, regardless of whether Popes Leo and Dioscoros are exhonerated.
Or have I misunderstood the proposal?
H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy (or H.H. Pope Shenouda III - my memory is a little hazy) has, I believe, indicated in one of his articles, that the Church is willing to acknowledge Chalcedon et al as mere local Councils of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, given the understanding that they can be interpreted within the framework of Miaphysite Orthodoxy. On the other hand, Patriarch Bartholomew has indicated, in an audio interview with a representative of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Northen America, that the OO Church needs to accept all seven Councils of the EOC as Ecumenical.
Hypothetically speaking, if the OO accepted the 4 Councils as local, interpreting them "within the framework of Miaphysite Orthodoxy," could one not take it a step further and say that, although the OO was not represented in these Councils, by virtue of them having been accepted by the OO later on, that they can now be considered Ecumenical?
Rome, for example, did not accept Chalcedon as Ecumenical until centuries later, so in principle cannot the same thing take place here?
Or do you think would be an unworkable solution?
I really appreciate your opinions on this matter - I'm learning a lot. I also think that in order for a more than superficial unity to be restored, the two churches cannot differ in the number of Councils they hold to be Ecumenical.
Personally I would be in favour of an 8th Ecumenical Council in which the 15EO and 6OO churches were represented, which would uphold the previous 7 councils, but interpret them in a way acceptable to both sides.
With regards to administration, no change would have to be made in respect to Ethiopia, Eritrea, Armenia and India on the one side, and Constantnople, Moscow, Georgia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Athens, Albania, Poland and Czech Lands & Slovakia.
With regards to Alexandria I would be in favour of the Coptic and Melkite Synods joining, and electing a single Patriarch (and for the latter to return to the Old Calendar, which is followed by most of the EO). Coptic, Greek and Arabic bishops would be allocated according to the demographic makeup of the various areas - rites and traditions of the local churches would be kept as they are.
A similar solution would also be applicable to Antioch.
Jerusalem would be more complicated since there already exists a situation of overlapping jurisdictions within the OOC in this place - Armenians, Copts and Syrians having different Archbishops. Given the make-up of faithful in the Holy Land, I would have thought it most appropriate to intigrate these three into the current EO Patriarchate, though the large Armenian presence must be taken into account in this.
With regards to America and western Europe, both our churches suffer from an uncanonical situation of overlapping jurisdictions caused by immigration, and so this is more difficult to resolve. Though such a situation would not be an obsticle to eucharistic unity. Given the fact that the OCA is self-governing with its own Metropolitan, I would have thought this would be the key to unity within America.
Of course, merging synods, etc would not happen overnight but gradually.
This seems to me to be the most workable solution anyways.
What are your thoughts on an 8th (4th) Council?