Catholics Have To Submit To The Pope No Matter How Wicked

[thessalonian]

[quote]I never said that the bible "feel out of the sky"[/quote]I didn't say you did. But if you can't allow for them to be infallible at times when they were inspired by the spirit of God then you have a problem with scripture because if they were never infallible, their words and writings could not have been infallible either. The were partner to what they said and wrote. God said "he who hears you hears me". He told Peter and the twelve individually and collectively that WHATEVER they bound on earth would be bound in heaven. Now God cannot bind a lie and so when they were excercising this authority of binding they must have been infallble. God would not bind an error.


[quote] but if you're saying that those gospel writers are/were "infallible" during doctrinal moments, then you also have to assume that not just St. Peter was infallible but everyone else that wrote in the Bible.[/quote]

When they were writing scripture they were. yes.

[quote]Catholics believe that the Pope is "Infalllible" based upon apostolic succession of St. Peter, the Coptic Church was founded by St. Mark and therefore according to your theology of Apostolic succession, the successor[s]of the See of St. Mark are also infallible, so according to your theology, His Holiness Pope Shenounda III and the apostolic successors of the other Apostles are also infallible, not just the Roman successor of St. Peter [as the Syriac Orthodox Church is also a direct apostolic successor of St. Peter[/quote]

The mistake you make is our claim that Peter singularly is infallible is based on Matt 16:18 where he is given a singular charism of infallibility such that WHATEVER he bound and loosed on earth would be b & l in heaven. The prophets collectively (including Peter as a part of the collective group) were given the same binding and loosing authority in Matt 18 as a group. So no, individuals did not have the same infallibility as Peter. Collectively they did. We see Popes as infallible in the circumstances defined by the doctrine of infallibility and also the councils, including the Popes who attend and ratify them. So no,your patriarch would not be infallible singularly.


By the way you make another mistake. A successor to the Apostles does not mean that a Bishop is an Apostle and therefore does not have all the Charisms of an Apostle.

Edited March 28, 2007 by thessalonian

[Budge]

Oh come all, he can call himself a servant all he wants with his on call doctor, legions of helpers, secretaries, cooks, cleaners, and employees but hes not.

servants dont sit up in thrones drapped in jewelry, wearing real fur and thousand dollar silks.

servants dont have people bow down to them and kiss their ring.

servants dont direct kings and queens and other world leaders and tell them what to do.

servants dont have huge crowds idolzing every thing that falls out of their mouth.

[img]http://www.theblackmadonna.net/images/Pope_Benedict_XVI_elected.jpg[/img]

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Budge' post='1221351' date='Mar 28 2007, 06:55 PM']Oh come all, he can call himself a servant all he wants with his on call doctor, legions of helpers, secretaries, cooks, cleaners, and employees but hes not.

servants dont sit up in thrones drapped in jewelry, wearing real fur and thousand dollar silks.

servants dont have people bow down to them and kiss their ring.

servants dont direct kings and queens and other world leaders and tell them what to do.

servants dont have huge crowds idolzing every thing that falls out of their mouth.[/quote]Yeah, and if those huge crowds were [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts5.htm#v15"]chasing his shadow to be healed (Acts 5:15-16)[/url], that would be really bad, right? Talk about offensive to Christianity!

Edited March 28, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Budge' post='1221351' date='Mar 28 2007, 04:55 PM']Oh come all, he can call himself a servant all he wants with his on call doctor, legions of helpers, secretaries, cooks, cleaners, and employees but hes not.

servants dont sit up in thrones drapped in jewelry, wearing real fur and thousand dollar silks.

servants dont have people bow down to them and kiss their ring.

servants dont direct kings and queens and other world leaders and tell them what to do.

servants dont have huge crowds idolzing every thing that falls out of their mouth.

[img]http://www.theblackmadonna.net/images/Pope_Benedict_XVI_elected.jpg[/img][/quote]

Addressing you point-by-point:

1. Spiritual servants accept the gifts and talents of various people and give them employment to help put food on their families. If you know how to get a man as busy as the pope the time to cook his own food, clean his own apartment, manage his schedule, and perform surgery on himself, then I'd like to see that.

2. You're right. This is an area where many servants have failed. Thank you for pointing it out. Pope Benedict, however, generally wears things that are donated or hand-me-downs.

3. Spiritual servants do, when kissing a ring is understood as a sign of reverence for Christ.

4. Spiritual servants do. If they didn't, they wouldn't be doing their job. It is the task of every Christian to use his or her influence to help set straight the temporal matters in the world. The Church is supposed to be leaven in the world...that's from the Scriptures. If the pope didn't do that, you'd say he was unfaithful to the Gospel.

5. Anyone who idolizes the pope is committing grave error. The pope, however, can hardly be blamed. Furthermore, let's not confuse his following for idolatry. Even Peter had people flock around him, just to be touched by his shadow.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1221066' date='Mar 28 2007, 08:54 AM']Al, I like your post, but most Catholics do not think it through to this extent. Most Catholics give the Pope way too much credit that he is 'right' and there-in is the problem in practical application. Let's look at a quick example.

Is the Sylabus of Errors infallible or not?[/quote]
I agree with you that many Catholics do not think it through to this extent. And for everyone who does not pretend to be a theologian or an apologist, I really don't mind that. Nothing is lost by the average layman following along the party line from what comes out of Rome. The faithful should be free to have simple faith if they so wish... but the minute they begin to try their hands at apologetics and theology they ought to be reproved for attempts to falsley charecturize what the pope's actual role is.

As regards the syllabus of errors; I've always thought that as binding on the whole Church and thus without error. But its precise nature of condemning specific philosophical points makes it hard to understand outside of its context and that makes it not very relevant. I do believe it was Cardinal Ratzinger who said he affirmed the direct pointed negatives of the Syllabus and say Lumen Gentium as the flip-side positives corresponding. IE: the syllabus says this very specific idea is wrong, lumen gentium says this is how it would be right. I understand that there are Catholics who don't believe it is infallible... oftentimes those are the same Catholics who overemphasize the statements of the current popes. When the pope binds the entire Church into a belief, that pope cannot err. God gives us this assurance so we can trust His Church. But not every word out of the pope's mouth attempts to bind the whole Church; it seems to me the syllabus of errors did, humanari generis did, ordinatio sacerdolis did. But these are not these extra-ordinary examples of superb infallibility; by which not only do we trust that it has no error in it but also that God desires it to be a keystone of doctrine, a dogma. things like the Syllabus and Humanari Generis can be imperfect and not totally applicable always and everywhere, but they contain no actual error. God gives them a nihil-obstat; nothing (no error) stands in the way of the faithful believing them.

of course, under the position I was proposing, one would say it did not bind the whole Church because of the schism. but if the Catholic Church is the one true Church, it would appear to me that Pius IX bound the whole Church to believe these specific things were wrong. and if so, I would say nothing other than: no one would be in error to accept these things; and therefore to say these points of the syllabus were in error would wrong. But that doesn't mean they're the divinely inspired only-way-to-have-a-good-society-is-to-directly-contradict-these-points-with-their-opposites... that just means that Pius IX did not bind Catholics to believe errors. He bound Catholics to believe these things, therefore these things are not errors.

Reza, St. Peter specifically was given the keys. Then, the entire whole of the Apostles were given the keys. Either way, something must be said for the difference between INFALLIBILITY, a negative charism, and INSPIRATION, a positive charism. The Keys to the Kingdom guarentee the infallibility of St. Peter individually, and then the Apostles as a whole in consensus (ie ALL the bishops). But see my last post for what infallibility actually is: God doesn't let the pope bind the Church in error. That's it. He can lead people into sin, he just cannot bind them with his papal authority into believing something false. Everything he says is not out of the mouth of God, everything he binds the Church in is proof-read by God in advance; if he intends to bind the Church in error God will stop him from doing it. Inspiration is what the authors of the New Testament, not all apostles, were given: ie God positively aided their faculties into saying what He wanted to be said. Not even the superb and extraordinary excercise of infallibility to define dogma have inspiration.

God could have wanted the pope to apologize for the copts for centuries... but He wasn't inspiring them, He was stopping them from forcing the faithful to believe error as part of their faith. no pope ever tried to make the whole Church believe the Crusade against the copts was justified. infallibility doesn't mean that the pope does and says everything God wants him to.

It should, of course, be noted that the intention of the popes who called for the crusades was to fight against the muslims. It was the ignorance and ambition and sin of the crusaders themselves who attacked the copts and other orthodox as well

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1221350' date='Mar 28 2007, 03:53 PM']I didn't say you did. But if you can't allow for them to be infallible at times when they were inspired by the spirit of God then you have a problem with scripture because if they were never infallible, their words and writings could not have been infallible either.

[b]What are you talking about, you said that if I didn't consider the Roman pope to be "infallible" then I must believe that the Bible fell out of the sky but again St. Peter didn't write most of the Bible and didn't even write a single one of the gospels. Therefore if you're saying that St. Peter was infallible because he helped writer a fraction of the Bible, then the other Apostles [particuarly thoughs that wrote the gospels] would also be infallible, and that would make the direct successor of St. Mark, His Holiness Pope Shenounda III infallible also, and you wouldn't find those two churches disagreeing.[/b]

The were partner to what they said and wrote. God said "he who hears you hears me". He told Peter and the twelve individually and collectively that WHATEVER they bound on earth would be bound in heaven. Now God cannot bind a lie and so when they were excercising this authority of binding they must have been infallble. God would not bind an error.

[b]I definately agree they can't bind a lie, which is why I dont follow the Roman Church but in regards to what you've written here, it still doesn't prove your point.[/b]

When they were writing scripture they were. yes.
The mistake you make is our claim that Peter singularly is infallible is based on Matt 16:18 where he is given a singular charism of infallibility such that WHATEVER he bound and loosed on earth would be b & l in heaven.

[b]Whats interesting is that you just wrote that all the apostles "individually" were given this ability. More importantly is that your claim that because they wrote the gospels they were infallible doesn't work. I also would disagree with your view of St. Peter, as I dont believe that he'd ever proclaimed to be infallible, that was a Roman invention.[/b]

The prophets collectively (including Peter as a part of the collective group) were given the same binding and loosing authority in Matt 18 as a group. So no, individuals did not have the same infallibility as Peter. Collectively they did. We see Popes as infallible in the circumstances defined by the doctrine of infallibility and also the councils, including the Popes who attend and ratify them.

[b]If this theology that you're presenting is correct, then the Roman Pope/Patriarch didn't have supreme authority and it takes the group collectively to ratify something. In the situation of the council of Chalcedon, the Coptic Patriarch wasn't present. It also would conclude that everyone of the patriarches have the same authority.[/b]

So no,your patriarch would not be infallible singularly.

[b]As neither would the Roman pope/patriarch then [which Romans would disagree with].[/b][/quote]


[quote]The reason we see that St. Peter is infallible is because Councils are infallible, and each Council's decision must be ratified by St. Peter to be so. Therefore, the infallibility comes only when the Councils are in union with the Successor of Peter, meaning that the infallibility hinges on his office[/quote] St. Peter wasn't present at the councils [Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc].

Reza

[thessalonian]

Did the Bible fall out of the sky or did some men write it.


[quote]you said that if I didn't consider the Roman pope to be "infallible" then I must believe that the Bible fell out of the sky[/quote]I find this irrational inability to comprehend among those who have no real wish to at least have productive dialogue and understand even if they don't accept Catholicism. It's annoying. Here is what I said:

"Did the Bible fall out of the sky or did some men write it?"

Now it's a bit sarcastic but it is a question and I expect you to give the obvious answer and so quite the contrary, I don't think you think it fell out of the sky.

[quote]but again St. Peter didn't write most of the Bible and didn't even write a single one of the gospels.[/quote]

It doesn't matter if he only wrote two letters, unless of course you think only the gospels are infallible. I'm not saying you do. The point is that at least in that limited time frame when he wrote those two letters he wrote infallibly. Do you agree or are the two letters errant? It's one or the other.

[quote]Therefore if you're saying that St. Peter was infallible because he helped writer a fraction of the Bible, then the other Apostles [particuarly thoughs that wrote the gospels]would also be infallible, and that would make the direct successor of St. Mark, His Holiness Pope Shenounda III infallible also, and you wouldn't find those two churches disagreeing.[/quote]

I am saying that in limited circustances for the purpose of God he was infallible. But quite clearly not always. Your having trouble grasping this and I'm not sure why. Someone who is a successor of an Apostle is not infallible because Matt 16:18 has no application to him. The keys and several other things that you don't believe in, but are nontheless quite true do show that the papacy is the throne of Peter. That the singular words said to him are associated with 2000 years of Popes as well. There is no such promise individually for Mark. There is collectively for all the Apostles and that collective LIMITED infallibility (i.e. not always and individually infallible) is manifest in the unanimous cosent of the bishops and during binding decrees of councils ratified by the Pope.

Don't know how else I can explain it. Especially if your not willing to understand.

[qoute]St. Peter wasn't present at the councils [Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc].[/quote]

Coptics don't believe in any kind of succession? The keys are an indication that the authroity of Peter was to be passed on. The parallel to Is 22:22 also indicates this as the steward, the forshadowing of the Papacy, that also had the key to the house of david and binding and loosing authority, also indicates this, since that office was a successionary office. There are indictions that there were successors of the other Apostles to. But I fear I'm wasting my time. You have your hands over your ears when I write.

Edited March 28, 2007 by thessalonian

[Aloysius]

yes he was, by his delegates. all the world's bishops must be represented in some way for it to be an ecumenical council... but that can be done by representatives. and if the pope is represented by delegats, and he himself represents all the bishops of his sui juris church who cannot be there; then all the apostles (bishops) were present at the council, including the Pope. all the councils (with the exception of the fourth council of Constantinople, which is not counted as an ecumenical council by the east but is by the west, and was of course supported by the pope and his delegates were there though his official ratification was never explicitly sought as with the first seven and the subsequent 13) sought the ratification of the bishop of Old Rome before they were considered authrotative ecumenical councils.

I think understanding might be better served by the adverb rather than the adjective... for the adjective is sticking to its noun too much whereas it was never intended to. The adjective: that the pope is infallible, or that x statement is infallible, is sticking to the pope too much for Reza and sticking to x statement too much for Anomaly. The adverb infallibly might serve better: because it is actions to which we want "infallible" to stick in people's minds. therefore, the pope can only bind the Church in doctrine infallibly. it is his act of binding the Church on a point of doctrine which is infallibly done; meaning that we can trust that to believe what the pope has bound us to believe will not make us believe error. when Pope Pius XII said that, to be Catholic, all the faithful must believe in monogenesis (that there was one original set of parents from which we all descended, as per genesis) we could be assured that our belief in monogenesis is not wrong. We will not get to heaven and find out there were multiple sets of original parents. Now, did God want Pius XII to use the word "monogenesis"? Who knows? Did God even want Pius XII to say that at that time? maybe he'd have rather had Pius XI say that; maybe he'd have rather had him specify even further and bind the Church in saying "We had two original ancestors who spoke the language of the birds". Perhaps that is true; let us presume for a second that it was true, that there was actually such a thing as the language of the birds and that Adam and Eve actually spoke it. God may have liked to tell us that; but the Pope is not a tool by which He would tell us that. He would merely make sure the pope doesn't make us believe something untrue, he never inspires the pope to reveal something new as true. He binds the Church infallibly; he is not infallible as a substantial part of his nature.

[Budge]

For all those who keep mocking the Bible asking if it fell out of the sky, you either believe this or you dont.
[b]
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalms 12:6-7)[/b]

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Budge' post='1221601' date='Mar 28 2007, 08:59 PM']For all those who keep mocking the Bible asking if it fell out of the sky, you either believe this or you dont.
[b]
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. (Psalms 12:6-7)[/b][/quote]


Mocking the Bible? Hardly. Do you always slander and distort Catholics in this way. That would indicate that you don't think much of the commandments since you so cavalierly violate them. It's called bearing false witness and you do it well on this site. They're in that bible you claim to think so highly of. It even tells us to meditate on them and obey them.

Edited March 29, 2007 by thessalonian

[Budge]

I keep reading the line...

"Did the Bible just fall out of the SKY?"

[mod]Taking quotes out of context for the sole purpose of insulting another person's faith or intelligence is not allowed. -Raphael[/mod]

[thessalonian]

[mod]Uncharitable comment. -Raphael[/mod] Read the context instead of taking things out of context and twisting them and making false accusations. [mod]Uncharitable comment. -Raphael[/mod]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1221426' date='Mar 28 2007, 05:30 PM']Did the Bible fall out of the sky or did some men write it.
I find this irrational inability to comprehend among those who have no real wish to at least have productive dialogue and understand even if they don't accept Catholicism. It's annoying. Here is what I said:

"Did the Bible fall out of the sky or did some men write it?"

Now it's a bit sarcastic but it is a question and I expect you to give the obvious answer and so quite the contrary, I don't think you think it fell out of the sky.

[b]It was directed at me, because of my statement that the pope isn't infallible and St. Peter isn't infallible, in the context of if I don't think that St. Peter was infallible, then I must believe that the Bible fell out of the sky.[/b]


It doesn't matter if he only wrote two letters, unless of course you think only the gospels are infallible. I'm not saying you do. The point is that at least in that limited time frame when he wrote those two letters he wrote infallibly. Do you agree or are the two letters errant? It's one or the other.

[b]I'm putting it into context for you, that if you use the example of St. Peter supposedly being infallible because he'd partaken in writing the Bible, then you should also put into context that the other Apostles [particularly those that wrote the gospels] must also have been infallible. In the context of the Roman Pope, if you're saying that St. Peter was infallible as such and the Roman Pope, through Apostolic Succession, was given that same infallible authority, then the other Apostles that wrote the scriptures also would be infallible and those that succeeded them.[/b]

I am saying that in limited circustances for the purpose of God he was infallible. But quite clearly not always. Your having trouble grasping this and I'm not sure why. Someone who is a successor of an Apostle is not infallible because Matt 16:18 has no application to him. The keys and several other things that you don't believe in, but are nontheless quite true do show that the papacy is the throne of Peter. That the singular words said to him are associated with 2000 years of Popes as well. There is no such promise individually for Mark. There is collectively for all the Apostles and that collective LIMITED infallibility (i.e. not always and individually infallible) is manifest in the unanimous cosent of the bishops and during binding decrees of councils ratified by the Pope.

[b]Therefore those same limited circumstances apply to the other Apostles too, not just St. Peter. I'm not having trouble grasping what you're saying, I just don't agree with you. I know what you're saying and why you believe it, I just believe that it's wrong.

Note: The Roman Pope wasn't what validated the Councils, it was everyone of the Patriarches as a whole, with God's approval that validated it. The Roman Pope [as you'd mentioned above] can squabble whatever he'd like but that doesn't validate it.[/b]

Don't know how else I can explain it. Especially if your not willing to understand.

[b]Its not that I'm "not willing to understand", its that I don't agree with you and believe that you're wrong.[/b]

[qoute]St. Peter wasn't present at the councils [Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc].

Coptics don't believe in any kind of succession?

[b]No we believe in succession, as His Holiness Pope Shenounda III is the successor of St. Mark's Throne.[/b]

The keys are an indication that the authroity of Peter was to be passed on.

[b]That's your interpretation but nowhere does the Bible indicate that. St. Peter had special powers, I'm not going to deny that but I'm going to deny that your Patriarch has everyone of the powers that were given to him.[/b]

The parallel to Is 22:22 also indicates this as the steward, the forshadowing of the Papacy, that also had the key to the house of david and binding and loosing authority, also indicates this, since that office was a successionary office.

[b]I'd very much interpret that scripture quite differently then you but I'd like you to research Isaiah 19, as you can see that God promised to build an alter dedicated to him in Egypt and that it would never dissolve. Notice also that it says that there would be a connection between Jerusalem, Egypt and Assyria, which still are present today in the Oriental Orthodox Church. Nowhere in the Bible is the Roman Church EVER MENTIONED but the Coptic and Syriac Churches are mentioned and the same Aramaic that is used in the Syriac Church [that St. Peter founded] is used throughout the Bible.[/b]

There are indictions that there were successors of the other Apostles to. But I fear I'm wasting my time. You have your hands over your ears when I write.

[b]I'm very sorry that this isn't a dialogue but your agenda to try and prove everyone wrong.[/b][/quote]

Reza

[Aloysius]

Budge, You present a false dichotemy as if wanting to understand the mechanism by which God inspired the Bible is somehow impious.

It is a perfectly fine thing to oppose the idea of the Bible as falling out of the sky. Why? Because that is not factual. That is false. And the devil is the father of all falsehoods. God is truth, believing falshoods about His scriptures is therefore evil. It is evil, obstinant, ignorant, and heretical to hold a view of the bible as falling out of the sky instead of the factual view that God inspired the innerrant words by utilizing the faculties of the human authors. But then there is this evil and false attitude by which people treat the Bible as if it had fallen out of the sky and it is disgustingly terrible to treat the beautiful scriptures based on falsehoods.

Reza, what do you think of the old axom from St. Augustine "Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est", or the early role of arbitration the bishop of Old Rome had in all matters? surely you must at least admit a certain role of the Petrine ministry in arbitration in disputes between churches when they come to an irreconcilable disagreement. the majority of the Eastern Orthodox would at least admit to this role in the Early Church; and a role of the Bishop of Old Rome as first among equals.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1221402' date='Mar 28 2007, 06:13 PM']St. Peter wasn't present at the councils [Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc].

Reza[/quote]
I meant Peter and his Successors (or their representatives, whom he sent to speak on his behalf).

Peter was at the Council of Jerusalem. It was when he spoke that the decision was made. After that, the bishop of the local Church of Jerusalem proclaimed a disciplinary measure for his diocese to ensure that the measure could be carried out without scandal to his flock.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]Peter was at the Council of Jerusalem. It was when he spoke that the decision was made.[/quote]This is roman propaganda.

[quote]Reza, what do you think of the old axom from St. Augustine "Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est", or the early role of arbitration the bishop of Old Rome had in all matters[/quote] Sorry my friend, I'm not familiar enough with it to discuss it but I'm glad that you mentioned it, because I'd very much be interested in researching. St. Augustine isn't as admired in the East as in the West [as a matter of fact in Eastern Orthodoxy, he's not even referred to as "St." but "Blessed"] but it would still be very interesting to read.

Reza

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1221056' date='Mar 28 2007, 06:44 AM']In the situation of Copts, we are of the original church and were wrongfully labeled as Monophysites instead of Miaphysites and weren't given the opportunity to present the truth. We were kept from attending Chalcedon because of politics, dirty - nasty politics, nothing more. That asserted about Copts at Chalcedon was hersay, nothing more and should be treated as such.[/quote]Finally getting to this comment. I have read through the text of Chalcedon. I disagree that the council labeled Copts as Monophysites. The only mention of Coptic bishops is the 30th canon, pertaining to the acceptance letter of Pope Leo to Flavian, archbishop of Constantinople about Eutyches. Far from being accusatory, the text actually assumes that the Coptic bishops continue to hold the catholic Faith.

In any event, if we (i.e. you and I) can agree that Monophysitism is rejected by the Coptic Church, and that this is really a linguistic problem (e.g. if the meaning of "nature" vs. "physis" differ), then a linguistic solution (i.e. a term like miaphysite) may be the most effective and appropriate way to build bridges of unity between us.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1221839' date='Mar 29 2007, 01:15 AM']Finally getting to this comment. I have read through the text of Chalcedon. I disagree that the council labeled Copts as Monophysites. The only mention of Coptic bishops is the 30th canon, pertaining to the acceptance letter of Pope Leo to Flavian, archbishop of Constantinople about Eutyches. Far from being accusatory, the text actually assumes that the Coptic bishops continue to hold the catholic Faith.

[b] I was curious if you were going to respond back, but to respond to your post, I'm not sure what source you'd read about the council but it's true that the Coptic Church was kept from attending because of the monophysite/miaphysite situation and was labeled as "heretics". This is the primary [and pretty much the only] situation that keeps the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox seperate. At this point in history, the Eastern Orthodox had began sending their bishops to "replace" our Bishops in Egypt.[/b]

In any event, if we (i.e. you and I) can agree that Monophysitism is rejected by the Coptic Church, and that this is really a linguistic problem (e.g. if the meaning of "nature" vs. "physis" differ), then a linguistic solution (i.e. a term like miaphysite) may be the most effective and appropriate way to build bridges of unity between us.

[b]That's what I could definately agree with, most of the problems with the Copts and the situation at Chalcedon was just that, "linguistic differences". Everyone at Chalcedon and the Oriental Orthodox, agree that Jesus Christ had two natures [divine and human], that they were never seperated [Jesus was always God] but they were never intermingled.[/b][/quote]

Reza

[Aloysius]

The Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence-Rome (commonly referred to as Florence) happened after Chalcedon; it was there that the Bull of Union with the Copts was agreed to by the delegate of the Coptic Patriarch, Andrew. Any insult incurred by not being involved in Chalcedon due to misunderstandings should be ancient history considering that at Florence we condemned Monophysitism together. Your Patriarch's delegate was questioned at length and we determined he did not hold any monophysite heresy. That particular matter was settled there in the year of our Lord 1434ish.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I'm a militant Catholic, and if utter loyalty and obedience to one's commander-in-chief is a bad thing in your mind so be it. As for me: death before dishonor.