Jihad Is A Much Larger Threat Than Nazism

[cmotherofpirl]

Kindly [i]stop[/i] referring to the Catholic Church as "Roman". That is insulting to the 21 other rites and usages of the Church.

[FullTruth]

Islam is having a huge impact on the world, and the reason for it is scriptural. They don't have the truth, that is for sure, but they practice holiness before the Lord. Think about it. Don't you admire them for praying 6 times a day?

Don't you admire them for their dedication to God?

The reason is -

[quote name='Hebrews 12:13-15' date=' KJV']And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.

Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;[/quote]

People see the dedication of Muslims in the first world, and they go - Wow - look at this man of honour, or woman of honour.

No Alcohol, and many other holiness standards regarding modesty.

They desire that, and see God in them.

The thing is God is moving in many of their lives, and many will come to the knowledge of the truth.

And the reason why is the Church doesn't want to live in holiness anymore. We don't follow peace with each other any more. One group fights another group, which fights another group. All the while, people hear about Christian Presidents who committ wars a large portion of the population don't agree with, and priests who defile young children, in RC and other churches.

Add onto that, people like Dan Brown spewing his evil and poison, people are starting to think Christianity is a sham, and see Islam a good religion to follow after.

Hence, the end game is on us, and it is not Islam we need to fight, but the real threat - the Nephilim.

I know many of you don't believe what I believe, but the Nephilim do exist, and the evil occult magicks they use on me every single day is proof enough for me. Once we get rid of them, there will be a revival of true holiness and true Christianity which will outshine Islam in every way, shape, and form. Praise God!

[Anomaly]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1232168' date='Apr 6 2007, 09:57 AM']Kindly [i]stop[/i] referring to the Catholic Church as "Roman". That is insulting to the 21 other rites and usages of the Church.[/quote]I don't understand the problem with that.
There are a number of 'Catholic Churches' that are not under the Supremacy and Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Using only "Catholic" is innaccurate and misleading.

Using Roman Catholic identifies specifically the Catholic Church that has the Roman Rite Bishop as Pope who holds the position of Supremacy and Primacy of Bishop over all the other Rites. If that's insulting to the other Rites, take it up with the Roman Catholics, their Clergy, and their Theologians..

Edited April 6, 2007 by Anomaly

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232133' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:27 AM']Sorry but you're wrong about history. History clearly proves that there were 4 patriarches and God is the highest authority. Surely there were 4 rites but God was the head of those not a man. Therefore 4 different patriarches doesn't make God a polygimist.[/quote]There is nothing set in stone about four patriarchs, unless you're frozen in time. In fact, it's not even clear to me "when" you were frozen. In the Council of Nicea, three patriarchs were mentioned (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch). In the Council of Chalcedon (rejected by monophysites), five patriarchs were mentioned. All the time, the Primacy of Rome was maintained.

Further, your "4 rites" argument doesn't even work very well for the Oriental Orthodox Communion, because they include more than four rites. So, what universal church had the authority to establish or legitimize new patriarchs and rites? And, if you think your church has such authority (it clearly thinks it does), how could you complain when the Catholic Church does the same thing?

Unfortunately, your church's schism necessitates that its followers believe that the historic primacy of the See of Rome was somehow magically transferred to the Oriental Orthodox claimant in Alexandria. How one could argue that the See of Alexandria holds primacy is beyond me; worse, it's ahistorical.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232133' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:27 AM']In regards to your "monophysite" comment, as I'd mentioned Copts were never Monophysites but Miaphysites. Copts condemned monophysitism long before Romans ever thought of doing so, if you'd like to keep living a lie, proclaiming something that was never true about Copts, then I pity you.[/quote]That's great. So we can pity eachother all we want, or we can respect eachother by using the commonly used names of "Catholic Church" and "Coptic Orthodox Church." I'd prefer the latter.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232133' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:27 AM']Therefore I'm going to refer to you as "the Roman Church" or you're going to refer to Copts as The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Coptic Orthodox Church of the Holy See of St. Mark[/quote]As you say, "no thanks" and "it's theologically incorrect."

The problem for the Oriental Orthodox communion is that it includes a Syrian church who really was Monophysite. Lack of theological unity, failing the test of being "One" Church. It isn't proper to call something "One" when it isn't.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232133' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:27 AM']It doesn't fail, what fails is that the church [the original church of 4 rites] experienced a schism. Now you can put blame on whoever you'd like of "who's fault" that is but the fact is the fact and it was a fact that Copts were excommunicated as "heretics" based upon hersay, not factual truth and were kept by military force from attending the council to allow the truth to be heard. It's obvious that your knowledge about "oriental Orthodoxy" is severaly flawed. We aren't "several churches", we're one church.[/quote]So the differences of doctrine are acceptable within Oriental Orthodoxy?

As I mentioned, Eastern Catholics (particularly priests and monks) were slaughtered at the hands of Oriental Orthodox, in defense of monophysitism. Or were they murdering Catholics based on hearsay? As far as "military force" keeping Copts from Chalcedon, I'd love to see your proof of this. The Council documents I've already quoted (specifically canon 30) don't align well with your alternative view of history.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1232543' date='Apr 6 2007, 04:28 PM']I don't understand the problem with that.
There are a number of 'Catholic Churches' that are not under the Supremacy and Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Using only "Catholic" is innaccurate and misleading.[/quote]It isn't any more misleading than the Greeks using the term "Orthodox" by itself. Heck, even the term "Oriental Orthodox" and "Coptic Orthodox" could be rejected on such a basis. Let's stick to the real-world's terms when possible and not try to invent an alternative universe of names.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1232543' date='Apr 6 2007, 04:28 PM']Using Roman Catholic identifies specifically the Catholic Church that has the Roman Rite Bishop as Pope who holds the position of Supremacy and Primacy of Bishop over all the other Rites. If that's insulting to the other Rites, take it up with the Roman Catholics, their Clergy, and their Theologians..[/quote]You may want to read the documents of Vatican II, among many other Church documents, in which it is clear that this issue was "taken up" a while ago.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1232552' date='Apr 6 2007, 05:00 PM']It isn't any more misleading than the Greeks using the term "Orthodox" by itself. Heck, even the term "Oriental Orthodox" and "Coptic Orthodox" could be rejected on such a basis. Let's stick to the real-world's terms when possible and not try to invent an alternative universe of names.[/quote]So two wrongs make it right?
[quote]You may want to read the documents of Vatican II, among many other Church documents, in which it is clear that this issue was "taken up" a while ago.[/quote]What issue? I don't see how identifying which Catholic Church by the Pimary and Supreme Rite is insulting to the Primary and Supreme Rite. Obviously the other Rites that agree to be subservient to the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome don't have an issue with it.

It's really a fuss about nothing so that Roman Catholics can claim to be Catholic alone. That's fine if Roman Catholics are discussing things amongst themselves. Else it's just a tempest in a tea-cup.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1232594' date='Apr 6 2007, 05:39 PM']So two wrongs make it right?[/quote]I'm afraid I'm not following you.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1232594' date='Apr 6 2007, 05:39 PM']What issue? I don't see how identifying which Catholic Church by the Pimary and Supreme Rite is insulting to the Primary and Supreme Rite. Obviously the other Rites that agree to be subservient to the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome don't have an issue with it.

It's really a fuss about nothing so that Roman Catholics can claim to be Catholic alone. That's fine if Roman Catholics are discussing things amongst themselves. Else it's just a tempest in a tea-cup. [/quote]The primacy of Rome hasn't changed over the course of the centuries, yet the Catholic Church wasn't called "Roman" by the Oriental Orthodox until their schism. Quoting St. Augustine ([url="http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp"]link[/url]):[quote]"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is catholic and which is called catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard" (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).

"We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (Faith and Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).

...

""If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so" (ibid., 5:6).

In the Catholic Church . . . a few spiritual men attain [wisdom] in this life, in such a way that . . . they know it without any doubting, while the rest of the multitude finds [its] greatest safety not in lively understanding but in the simplicity of believing. . . . [T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority,
inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. [b]And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house"[/b] (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).[/quote]These quotes predates both the Coptic schism and the Greek schism.

It just doesn't make any sense to believe that the Catholic Church can be in schism with itself, which seems to be the theory of Reza, based on his Coptic point of view.

[Anomaly]

Dude,
Why get caught up in some theological debate over nuance when it's just an identifier to specifically address the Catholic Church headquartered in Rome and led by the Roman Rite Bishop? Jimney. Roman Catholic or RC is soooooo offensive!

If you want to get into some issues of importance, why don't you try identfiying, applying, and analyzing some Christian moral principles concerning some real life issues such as Iraq, Darfu, or the Congo where people are dying instead of getting all worked up over the exact nomenclature used to name your Religion?

Edited April 6, 2007 by Anomaly

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1232545' date='Apr 6 2007, 01:42 PM']There is nothing set in stone about four patriarchs, unless you're frozen in time. In fact, it's not even clear to me "when" you were frozen. In the Council of Nicea, three patriarchs were mentioned (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch). In the Council of Chalcedon (rejected by monophysites), five patriarchs were mentioned. All the time, the Primacy of Rome was maintained.

[color="#FF0000"]1.) the Council of Chalcedon wasn't rejected by monophysites, this is a proven fact that no monophysites even attended or responded. Miaphysites were kept from going to the council and falsely labeled as monophysites, seriously you say that I say false truths about the Roman Church, check yourself. The history that I disagree with you on is debatable, this however isn't.

2.) St. Peter and St. Mark founded the Roman Church and the Antiochian [Syriac Orthodox] Church and St. Mark went on to found the Coptic Church. That's three of the original 4 rites. Before Jesus was crucified his words were to spread the gospel to the four corners of the world, therefore 4 rites were created to minister to those parts of the world. Those were the original 4 rites. Check your history bud.[/color]

Further, your "4 rites" argument doesn't even work very well for the Oriental Orthodox Communion, because they include more than four rites. So, what universal church had the authority to establish or legitimize new patriarchs and rites? And, if you think your church has such authority (it clearly thinks it does), how could you complain when the Catholic Church does the same thing?

[color="#FF0000"]Here's what's great, just as was mentioned by others here in this group, the Roman Church has other rites within it also, but what I'm talking about is the original four rites. As I'd mentioned, Rome was the rite who's responsiblity it was to minister to the west, Antioch from Lebanon to the far east, Egypt to the south, and so on and so fourth. This is a historical fact, undisputed except by you. Why were four rites created? To bring the gospel to the four corners of the earth! If you don't believe that, then you don't believe that St. Mark affirmed the Coptic Church which is idiotic as even secular sources proclaim that St. Mark affirmed the Coptic Church, it's undisputable.[/color]

Unfortunately, your church's schism necessitates that its followers believe that the historic primacy of the See of Rome was somehow magically transferred to the Oriental Orthodox claimant in Alexandria. How one could argue that the See of Alexandria holds primacy is beyond me; worse, it's ahistorical.

[color="#FF0000"]What's historical is that God is the head of the church, not a man. You're interpreting history as you'd like it to be interpreted but the truth is that Rome was never superior to the other three original rites, you're attempting to change history because it doesn't fit your theology. Let's take a closer look at history:

1.) The other churches used to look to Alexandria for the proper time to celebrate easter
2.) St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Athaniasious, among others were those that were sought to the most at those times. They weren't Roman but they were Coptic. St. Athaniasious is credited by many scholars to be the one that wrote the Nicene Creed, yet he was Coptic not Roman. Before the council rejected Arius somebody came to St. Athanasious and said "everyone in the church is against you" and St. Athanasious said, "then I'm against everyone else". This shows the relationship between the rites, that no rite was superior and no patriarch was infallible.

If you'd like to believe otherwise, that's your choice but I'm talking history here.[/color]

That's great. So we can pity eachother all we want, or we can respect eachother by using the commonly used names of "Catholic Church" and "Coptic Orthodox Church." I'd prefer the latter.

[color="#FF0000"]I never said that, what I said is that you can refer to the Coptic Church as , "The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Coptic Orthodox Church of the See of St. Mark", everytime that you reference our church if you'd like me to stop using "Roman Church".[/color]

As you say, "no thanks" and "it's theologically incorrect."

[color="#FF0000"]No it's theologically correct, it just doesn't fit with your agenda.[/color]

The problem for the Oriental Orthodox communion is that it includes a Syrian church who really was Monophysite. Lack of theological unity, failing the test of being "One" Church. It isn't proper to call something "One" when it isn't.

[color="#FF0000"]The Syriac Orthodox Church was never Monophysite but rather Miaphysite, this is a proven fact. I know that you're having trouble getting it into that thick skull of yours but it's a proven fact and always has been, it was rumored that they were monophysites but just as the Copts, they were against monophysitism long before the Romans were, so to say that they are monophysites, is ignorant and completely ignoring history.[/color]

So the differences of doctrine are acceptable within Oriental Orthodoxy?

[color="#FF0000"]That's what's funny about you, you don't know anything about Oriental Orthodoxy to say that we have conflictions of doctrine. There are no conflictions of doctrine, and you obviously know nothing abot Oriental Orthodoxy to suggest something as such. Everyone of your "Monophysite" arguments has been lost, so you resort to just remaining in the dark, despite the undisputed facts that Oriental Orthodox were never monophysites but Miaphysites.[/color]

As I mentioned, Eastern Catholics (particularly priests and monks) were slaughtered at the hands of Oriental Orthodox, in defense of monophysitism.

[color="#FF0000"]This is highly disputed actually but it has nothing to do with the Oriental Orthodoxy. As a matter of fact, the Roman Catholics slaughtered far more Copts then the Syriac Orthodox were ever accused of killing.[/color]

Or were they murdering Catholics based on hearsay? As far as "military force" keeping Copts from Chalcedon, I'd love to see your proof of this. The Council documents I've already quoted (specifically canon 30) don't align well with your alternative view of history.

[color="#FF0000"]There's lots of proof, check the simple fact that the council was moved at the last minute, so that the military of "an an unknown patrarch" could keep the Copts from attending. As I'd mentioned, they were basing their condemnation of Copts on Hersay, not fact. Seriously, you don't want to talk about militantcy in the church, the Romans murdered a grip of Copts for rejecting Chalcedon but the Copts remained non-violent and turned the other cheek. You know I didn't want it to turn into this but apparently you got some serious self-confidence issues.[/color][/quote]

[quote]I don't understand the problem with that.
There are a number of 'Catholic Churches' that are not under the Supremacy and Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Using only "Catholic" is innaccurate and misleading.[/quote][color="#FF0000"]Exactly! [/color]

[quote]Dude,
Why get caught up in some theological debate over nuance when it's just an identifier to specifically address the Catholic Church headquartered in Rome and led by the Roman Rite Bishop? Jimney. Roman Catholic or RC is soooooo offensive!

If you want to get into some issues of importance, why don't you try identfiying, applying, and analyzing some Christian moral principles concerning some real life issues such as Iraq, Darfu, or the Congo where people are dying instead of getting all worked up over the exact nomenclature used to name your Religion?[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]That's for sure... [/color]

Edited April 6, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Mateo'][quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']1.) the Council of Chalcedon wasn't rejected by monophysites, this is a proven fact that no monophysites even attended or responded. Miaphysites were kept from going to the council and falsely labeled as monophysites, seriously you say that I say false truths about the Roman Church, check yourself. The history that I disagree with you on is debatable, this however isn't.[/quote]I'd say that the penchant for the original Oriental Orthodox to inflict bloodshed on Catholics is sufficient proof that they rejected Chalcedon.
[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']2.) St. Peter and St. Mark founded the Roman Church and the Antiochian [Syriac Orthodox] Church and St. Mark went on to found the Coptic Church. That's three of the original 4 rites. Before Jesus was crucified his words were to spread the gospel to the four corners of the world, therefore 4 rites were created to minister to those parts of the world. Those were the original 4 rites. Check your history bud.[/quote]Again, you'll have to remind me why "four rites" and "four patriarchs" isn't even set in stone by your own church. So how many patriarchs does it take to make an authoritative statement in the Oriental Orthodox Church? One? Four? Six? Who knows.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']Here's what's great, just as was mentioned by others here in this group, the Roman Church has other rites within it also, but what I'm talking about is the original four rites. As I'd mentioned, Rome was the rite who's responsiblity it was to minister to the west, Antioch from Lebanon to the far east, Egypt to the south, and so on and so fourth. This is a historical fact, undisputed except by you. Why were four rites created? To bring the gospel to the four corners of the earth! If you don't believe that, then you don't believe that St. Mark affirmed the Coptic Church which is idiotic as even secular sources proclaim that St. Mark affirmed the Coptic Church, it's undisputable.[/quote]It's almost as if you think Christ himself wanted four churches. He wanted one. Not four churches in schism with one another.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']What's historical is that God is the head of the church, not a man.[/quote]What is Biblical is that Our Lord himself appointed St. Peter as the "rock" upon which His Church would be built. And despite St. Peter's establishing other Sees, the pope who sits at the See of Rome has always been seen as the unique successor of St. Peter.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']1.) The other churches used to look to Alexandria for the proper time to celebrate easter[/quote]This is about as compelling as saying that Greenwich England holds some special authority over the world because time zones are based on their location. The "Easter Contoversy" is a very weak way to claim Alexandrian primacy.
[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']2.) St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Athaniasious, among others were those that were sought to the most at those times. They weren't Roman but they were Coptic. St. Athaniasious is credited by many scholars to be the one that wrote the Nicene Creed, yet he was Coptic not Roman. Before the council rejected Arius somebody came to St. Athanasious and said "everyone in the church is against you" and St. Athanasious said, "then I'm against everyone else". This shows the relationship between the rites, that no rite was superior and no patriarch was infallible.[/quote]Yet, without the authority of the pope, who was St. Athanasius? While we're at it, how do you think he and other Eastern bishops dealt with the Arians after the declarations of Nicea were made? When the Arians were persecuted by the Copts, was this somehow morally different than the Copts themselves being recipients of the same treatment they had dished out?

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']I never said that, what I said is that you can refer to the Coptic Church as , "The One Holy Catholic Apostolic Coptic Orthodox Church of the See of St. Mark", everytime that you reference our church if you'd like me to stop using "Roman Church".[/quote]Now the name's getting longer. The O.H.C.A.C.O.C.? Wow. That's a mouthful. How about, we are Catholic, you are Coptic Orthodox? Simple enough.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']The Syriac Orthodox Church was never Monophysite but rather Miaphysite, this is a proven fact.[/quote]They may have re-defined their beliefs to align themselves with the Copts, but they were persecuting the Catholics who defended Chalcedon for a reason.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']That's what's funny about you, you don't know anything about Oriental Orthodoxy to say that we have conflictions of doctrine. There are no conflictions of doctrine, and you obviously know nothing abot Oriental Orthodoxy to suggest something as such. Everyone of your "Monophysite" arguments has been lost, so you resort to just remaining in the dark, despite the undisputed facts that Oriental Orthodox were never monophysites but Miaphysites.[/quote]For someone who uses little to no citations to support his claims, I find it odd that you suggest I'm "keeping myself in the dark." In contrast, I've actually quoted historical documents in order to contradict the Coptic propoganda you have been fed. As you can imagine, there have been innumerable schisms and heresies in the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church, so you'll have to forgive me if I ask you to provide details and hard evidence to support the claims of your own church's schism.[/quote]

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Mateo'][quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']This is highly disputed actually but it has nothing to do with the Oriental Orthodoxy. As a matter of fact, the Roman Catholics slaughtered far more Copts then the Syriac Orthodox were ever accused of killing.[/quote]Once again, we've got emotional adjectives (i.e. "highly disputed"), as a kind of "get out of jail free" card. If you now dispute this claim, provide a citation to back your argument. As for arguing the numbers, how many Arians do you think the Copts killed? Hmmm? Honestly, if you're going to throw out a claim like this, why don't you back it up with numbers? How many Arians did the Copts kill? How many Copts did the Byzantine Orthodox kill? I'm not the one claiming anything about body counts; but you are. Proof, please.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1232749' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:59 PM']There's lots of proof, check the simple fact that the council was moved at the last minute, so that the military of "an an unknown patrarch" could keep the Copts from attending. As I'd mentioned, they were basing their condemnation of Copts on Hersay, not fact. Seriously, you don't want to talk about militantcy in the church, the Romans murdered a grip of Copts for rejecting Chalcedon but the Copts remained non-violent and turned the other cheek. You know I didn't want it to turn into this but apparently you got some serious self-confidence issues.[/quote]I've already admitted that the Catholic Church isn't made up of sinless saints. In contrast to my belief that the Catholic Church has had its share of saints and sinners (even among the popes), I find evidence of your own "serious self-confidence issues" in your view of the Copts as this "city on a hill" where they are always the victim and never the victimizer (except for those Arians, who deserved it...oops).[/quote]

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1232640' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:06 PM']Dude,
Why get caught up in some theological debate over nuance when it's just an identifier to specifically address the Catholic Church headquartered in Rome and led by the Roman Rite Bishop? Jimney. Roman Catholic or RC is soooooo offensive![/quote]The terms themselves don't offend. It is the intent behind their use that is the issue. In this case, Reza's intent to push the Coptic view that the Catholic Church is made up of multiple churches in schism with eachother. In honesty, I'm a little unsure why Reza believes he is in agreement with your post, because he has been quite passionate about arguing against the "identifier" that Catholics use to describe themselves. Making up new names to fit schismatic theology wasn't my idea.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1232640' date='Apr 6 2007, 06:06 PM']If you want to get into some issues of importance, why don't you try identfiying, applying, and analyzing some Christian moral principles concerning some real life issues such as Iraq, Darfu, or the Congo where people are dying instead of getting all worked up over the exact nomenclature used to name your Religion?[/quote]People have long been killed for carrying the name "Catholic"--is that not a "real life issue"? Why shouldn't they (and all Catholics, for that matter) be able to be referred to by the "identifier" that they held when they were martyred?

As for addressing "issues of importance," I do post on issues of importance. But, I am not under any obligation to fulfil whatever quotas you would set with regard to Iraq, Darfur, or the Congo. Live and let live...or post and let post.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1232837' date='Apr 6 2007, 05:18 PM']I'd say that the penchant for the original Oriental Orthodox to inflict bloodshed on Catholics is sufficient proof that they rejected Chalcedon.

[color="#FF0000"]No No No No No my friend, it was the Roman Catholics after Chalcedon that went to the Copts and began killing them for rejecting Chalcedon.[/color]

Again, you'll have to remind me why "four rites" and "four patriarchs" isn't even set in stone by your own church. So how many patriarchs does it take to make an authoritative statement in the Oriental Orthodox Church? One? Four? Six? Who knows.

[color="#FF0000"]No there's one patriarch of the Coptic Church. Again, you're attempting to use propaganda to disprove the Coptic Church and it just isn't working.[/color]

It's almost as if you think Christ himself wanted four churches. He wanted one. Not four churches in schism with one another.

[color="#FF0000"]No I never said that, what I said was that there were 4 rites, as one church. What I did say is that Christ himself is the head of the church, not a man.[/color]

What is Biblical is that Our Lord himself appointed St. Peter as the "rock" upon which His Church would be built. And despite St. Peter's establishing other Sees, the pope who sits at the See of Rome has always been seen as the unique successor of St. Peter.

[color="#FF0000"]That's Roman Propaganda, never proven and as I'd pointed out St. Athanasious was considered the individual that validated the Nicene Creed, not the Roman Pope. See you don't have to reiterate what Romans believe, I already know that, I just simply disagree based upon history, a history that the other 3 rites agree upon.[/color]

This is about as compelling as saying that Greenwich England holds some special authority over the world because time zones are based on their location. The "Easter Contoversy" is a very weak way to claim Alexandrian primacy.

[color="#FF0000"]I never said that Alexandria had primacy, rather I'd said that Christ himself is the head, and that your idea of Rome being supreme was never intended to me and never has been proven.[/color]

Yet, without the authority of the pope, who was St. Athanasius?

[color="#FF0000"]St. Athanasius wasn't validated by the Roman Pope. That's the most ridiculous argument to make, saying that without the Roman Pope St. Athanasius wouldn't be significant, because there was a point when everyone was against St. Athanasius and still he said, "then I'm against everyone else", it had nothing to do with "the surpremacy of the Pope" as a matter of fact that argument was non-existant, as Romans didn't always believe they were better then the other rites. That's an evolved theology.[/color]

While we're at it, how do you think he and other Eastern bishops dealt with the Arians after the declarations of Nicea were made? When the Arians were persecuted by the Copts, was this somehow morally different than the Copts themselves being recipients of the same treatment they had dished out?

[color="#FF0000"]The Copts never "persecuted" the Arians, rather after Nicene, they weren't welcome in Alexandria.[/color]

Now the name's getting longer. The O.H.C.A.C.O.C.? Wow. That's a mouthful. How about, we are Catholic, you are Coptic Orthodox? Simple enough.

[color="#FF0000"]No because that isn't official. Catholic isn't proper. Catholic means "universal" and is written in the Creeds of everyone of the original 4 rites. Roman Church, Coptic Orthodox Church, or One Holy Catholic Apostolic Coptic Orthodox Church is the official name of our church and you can be Roman Catholic Church.[/color]

They may have re-defined their beliefs to align themselves with the Copts, but they were persecuting the Catholics who defended Chalcedon for a reason.

[color="#FF0000"]No No No, the Romans persecuted the Copts, not the other way around. Would you like to quote sources? In the past I gave you a quote about this and you agreed that it wasn't right, but if you'd like to get back into it, lets do that because the Copts NEVER EVER attacked the Romans, EVER.[/color]

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

[color="#FF0000"]Notice that nearly the entire population knew as a fact, that the Council of Chalcedon wasn't legit and that the Copts were judged based upon hersay.[/color]

[quote]Copts suffered under the rule of the Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire. The Melkite Patriarchs, appointed by the emperors as both spiritual leaders and civil governors, massacred the Egyptian population whom they considered heretics. Many Egyptians were tortured and martyred to accept the terms of Chalcedon, but Egyptians remained loyal to the faith of their fathers and to the Cyrillian view of Christology. One of the most renowned Egyptian saints of that period is Saint Samuel the Confessor.[/quote][color="#FF0000"]Who persecuted who? You say that Copts persecuted Romans for Chalcedon? Get out of the closet, and come back to earth, seriously man. It's a proven fact that Copts were the persecuted ones. Now I don't hold this against Romans, but it agitates me to find ignorant people that reverse history to for their own agenda and interpretation of history.[/color]

[quote]The Roman Catholic Church teaches that it is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus. But it does not deny that the one and only, true Church of Christ exists, although less fully, in other churches and ecclesiastic bodies. Vatican Council II said in its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen gentium, 1964, § 15): "in some real way [non-Catholic Christians] are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power."[/quote]

[quote]The Oriental Orthodox churches were therefore often called Monophysite churches, although they reject this label, which is associated with Eutychian Monophysitism, preferring the term "non-Chalcedonian" or "Miaphysite" churches. Oriental Orthodox Churches reject the heretical Monophysite teachings of Eutyches, the heretical teachings of Nestorius and the Dyophysite definition of the Council of Chalcedon.[/quote][quote]In the 20th century, the Chalcedonian schism was not seen with the same relevance any more, and from several meetings between the Roman Catholic Pope and Patriarchs of the Oriental Orthodoxy, reconciling declarations emerged.

“ The confusions and schisms that occurred between their Churches in the later centuries, they realize today, in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter. Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of Incarnation. In words and life we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon.[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]Now after this being said, if you still believe that Copts are Monophsyites, then you really are ignorant, because that means everyone but you realizes that.[/color]

For someone who uses little to no citations to support his claims, I find it odd that you suggest I'm "keeping myself in the dark."

[color="#FF0000"]Even Roman Patriarches recognize what I'd stated, why can't you? His Holiness Pope John Paul II even made a formal appology to the Copts regarding the past, but you're in complete denial that it even happened, so you really are in the dark.[/color]

In contrast, I've actually quoted historical documents in order to contradict the Coptic propoganda you have been fed.

[color="#FF0000"]The only person spitting propaganda is the person that can't recongize what his own church has recognized and move on... Seriously, you still think that Copts are monophysites, which even His Holiness Pope John Paul II admitted wasn't true and never was true.[/color]

As you can imagine, there have been innumerable schisms and heresies in the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church, so you'll have to forgive me if I ask you to provide details and hard evidence to support the claims of your own church's schism.
[/quote]

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Mateo']Let's see what I can respond to...

[quote name='Reza']No No No No No my friend, it was the Roman Catholics after Chalcedon that went to the Copts and began killing them for rejecting Chalcedon[/quote]Do you really think this is a question of either/or?

[quote name='Reza']No there's one patriarch of the Coptic Church. Again, you're attempting to use propaganda to disprove the Coptic Church and it just isn't working.[/quote]I didn't say "Coptic Church". I said Oriental Orthodox. In addition to having multiple patriarchs (e.g. Antioch, Alexandria), the Oriental Orthodox church's include autocephalous patriarchies which were "created" (e.g. the patriarchs of Ethiopia, Eritrea). That's why I am finding a conflict between the "one patriarch" argument which you make in some places, as well as the "four patriarch" argument in others.

Here's another related point of interest (related to the Egyptian/Eritrean Orthodox churches): who decides what the Bible Canon is in the Oriental Orthodox churches? I find it a bit confusing that the "One" Church you belong to can't agree among its members what the Canon of the Bible is. Who is wrong and who is right about the Word of God?

[quote name='Reza']No I never said that, what I said was that there were 4 rites, as one church. What I did say is that Christ himself is the head of the church, not a man.[/quote]Right. But, surely you can accept the reasoning that Catholics believe that Christ has some visible representation down here. Given the Oriental Orthodox view of Pope Shenouda III, I would think you could understand this.

[quote name='Reza']I already know that, I just simply disagree based upon history, a history that the other 3 rites agree upon.[/quote]Just out of curiousity: which 3 rites/patriachs are you thinking of? Also, how many rites/patriachs exist in the Oriental Orthodox Church?

[quote name='Reza']I never said that Alexandria had primacy, rather I'd said that Christ himself is the head, and that your idea of Rome being supreme was never intended to me and never has been proven.[/quote]For some defense of the papacy:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp[/url]

[quote name='Reza']No because that isn't official. Catholic isn't proper. Catholic means "universal" and is written in the Creeds of everyone of the original 4 rites.[/quote]As an adjective, catholic means "universal." As a proper noun, "Catholic" refers to Christians in union with the Pope. This isn't as difficult as you're making it.

[quote name='Reza']No No No, the Romans persecuted the Copts, not the other way around. Would you like to quote sources? In the past I gave you a quote about this and you agreed that it wasn't right, but if you'd like to get back into it, lets do that because the Copts NEVER EVER attacked the Romans, EVER.[/quote]You seem to have difficulty understanding that the Oriental Orthodox includes more than the Coptic Church. You also don't seem to understand that the Catholic Church includes more than those who follow the Latin Rite. When you understand this, feel free to re-read my statement. Until then, your forced word substitutions (i.e. Romans) are going to keep you confused, because they don't agree with the language that everyone else speaks.

[quote name='Reza']Notice that nearly the entire population knew as a fact, that the Council of Chalcedon wasn't legit and that the Copts were judged based upon hersay.[/quote]I'm not trying to be a spelling nazi, but the term you keep using is spelled "hearsay."

In the first place, you seem to be suggesting a democratic method of arriving at truth. Something like, "Almost everyone thought Arianism was right and St. Athanasius was wrong." Do you see the error in such logic?

Second, I hardly believe that any opinion of the population would have been terribly informed about Chalcedon. Heck, you even suggested that the Copts were accused [i]en masse[/i] of being Monophysites at Chalcedon. You would figure that somewhere in the last 15 centuries, a Copt might have actually read the Council documents and provide a quote which would support your claim that "Copts were judged based upon hearsay." I'll wait for you to "bring me out of the dark."

[quote name='Reza']Who persecuted who? You say that Copts persecuted Romans for Chalcedon? Get out of the closet, and come back to earth, seriously man. It's a proven fact that Copts were the persecuted ones. Now I don't hold this against Romans, but it agitates me to find ignorant people that reverse history to for their own agenda and interpretation of history.[/quote]Could you quote where I said that the Copts persecuted the Romans? Maybe you've misunderstood my statement. As far as "holding it against the Romans", I suspect there's a bit of self-denial in these words. You stated that the "Romans" persecuted the Copts. Far from "denial", my first and only response was (paraphrasing): "Yes, that's a lamentable tragedy of history; let's not forget that everyone has blood on their hands." It's you who has occasionally gone into denial mode with my response. BTW, is there a particular quote in which I stated that Catholics never persecuted Copts?
[/quote]

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Mateo'][quote name='Reza']Now after this being said, if you still believe that Copts are Monophsyites, then you really are ignorant, because that means everyone but you realizes that.[/quote]You don't seem to understand the difference between "[u]c[/u]atholic" and "[u]C[/u]atholic", yet I don't have the need to call you "ignorant."

I do believe that at least some early Copts and Syriac Orthodox (e.g. their founder Jacobus Baradaeus) believed in Monophysitism. Historically, these churches have been referred to as "monophysite." So, in that sense, it is perfectly acceptable for me to use a term that has been used for over 1500 years. I suspect that the switch from monophysite to miaphysite may have been gradual. Maybe you could share the first document in which miaphysite occurs in Coptic literature. Was it before Chalcedon (i.e. 451 AD)?

[quote name='Reza']Even Roman Patriarches recognize what I'd stated, why can't you? His Holiness Pope John Paul II even made a formal appology to the Copts regarding the past, but you're in complete denial that it even happened, so you really are in the dark.[/quote]I've read some of the ecumenical statements, but could you quote and/or link to the specific formal apology? I've looked all over, but haven't found its text.

Also, you're a bit non-committal about which particular positions of the yours (recognized by the Pope) are at odds with my posts. What specific things are you referring to when you talk about "complete denial"? I fear that you may be making some conclusions based on misinterpretations of what I have actually written, though.

[quote name='Reza']The only person spitting propaganda is the person that can't recongize what his own church has recognized and move on... Seriously, you still think that Copts are monophysites, which even His Holiness Pope John Paul II admitted wasn't true and never was true.[/quote]I already commented on the "copts are monophysites" thing. The Council of Chalcedon wasn't a council against the Copts. It was a council against monophysites (among other things, of course). Monophysites really existed. And Pope John Paul II explicitly reaffirmed the Council of Chalcedon, and reaffirmed the error of those who hold the doctrine of monophysitism. Let me know if you would like me to quote him.

BTW, in a spirit of appreciation (lest you think my only goal in life is to give you a hard time), I want to thank you for using such respect when referring to "His Holiness Pope John Paul II." I hope you don't take offense that I omit "His Holiness" from both our Pope (currently Pope Benedict XVI) and Pope Shenouda III. I really don't mean to show disrespect; it's just the way that Catholics are accustomed to refer to a pope.[/quote]

[RezaMikhaeil]

You don't seem to understand the difference between "catholic" and "Catholic", yet I don't have the need to call you "ignorant."

[color="#FF0000"] This is your own defination and attempt to "get your way" but the fact is that the capitol lettering doesn't change nothing, get over it.[/color]

I do believe that at least some early Copts and Syriac Orthodox (e.g. their founder Jacobus Baradaeus) believed in Monophysitism. Historically, these churches have been referred to as "monophysite." So, in that sense, it is perfectly acceptable for me to use a term that has been used for over 1500 years. I suspect that the switch from monophysite to miaphysite may have been gradual. Maybe you could share the first document in which miaphysite occurs in Coptic literature. Was it before Chalcedon (i.e. 451 AD)?

[color="#FF0000"]First, the Syriac Orthodox Church was founded by St. Mark and St. Peter, despite your distortion of history. Second, they never believed in monophysitism, as they condemned it before the Roman Church did, moreover I'd in the previous post gave you a direct quote from Roman's even admitting that we were never monophysites, if you can't accept what your own church clergy has admitted then what's the point in discussing it further?[/color]

Also, you're a bit non-committal about which particular positions of the yours (recognized by the Pope) are at odds with my posts. What specific things are you referring to when you talk about "complete denial"? I fear that you may be making some conclusions based on misinterpretations of what I have actually written, though.

[color="#FF0000"]There's much too many to address with you and it would be a waste of my time but if you'd like, we could start with monophysitism/miaphysitism. Roman Clergy, Eastern Orthodox Clergy have acknowledged that Copts were never monophysites but miaphysites, when are you going to acknowledge it?

I already commented on the "copts are monophysites" thing. The Council of Chalcedon wasn't a council against the Copts. It was a council against monophysites (among other things, of course). Monophysites really existed. And Pope John Paul II explicitly reaffirmed the Council of Chalcedon, and reaffirmed the error of those who hold the doctrine of monophysitism. Let me know if you would like me to quote him.

You'd commented on it, but you were simply wrong as His Holiness Pope John Paul II didn't reaffirm Chalcedon in the condemnation of Copts but actually appologized for the council's error. I'm not going to give you a "quote" because it's obvious that you're just going to ignore them. If you'd like to know more, do your own research, as my other quotes were disregarded by your post that came afterwards.[/color]

BTW, in a spirit of appreciation (lest you think my only goal in life is to give you a hard time), I want to thank you for using such respect when referring to "His Holiness Pope John Paul II." I hope you don't take offense that I omit "His Holiness" from both our Pope (currently Pope Benedict XVI) and Pope Shenouda III. I really don't mean to show disrespect; it's just the way that Catholics are accustomed to refer to a pope.

[color="#FF0000"]No problem, I consider them both to be Holy Men.[/color]

In addition to having multiple patriarchs (e.g. Antioch, Alexandria), the Oriental Orthodox church's include autocephalous patriarchies which were "created" (e.g. the patriarchs of Ethiopia, Eritrea).

[color="#FF0000"]Check your own history, you don't think that the "Coptic Catholics" [those that submit to Rome, that are hardly existant in Egypt because Egypt unanimously has agreed with the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Coptic Orthodox Church from the beginning] were created? They were definately created along with alot of other Roman Church sects that submit to Rome.[/color]

That's why I am finding a conflict between the "one patriarch" argument which you make in some places, as well as the "four patriarch" argument in others.

[color="#FF0000"]Wait Wait Wait Wait Wait, Back Up Back Up Back Up fella, I'd mentioned the original 4 rites, in reference to Chalcedon and that God is the head of The Church not a man. Now as you or somebody else mentioned, the "Coptic Catholic" sect even has it's own "patriarch". I'm not against other patriarchs, I'm against a man being the head of the church.[/color]

Here's another related point of interest (related to the Egyptian/Eritrean Orthodox churches): who decides what the Bible Canon is in the Oriental Orthodox churches? I find it a bit confusing that the "One" Church you belong to can't agree among its members what the Canon of the Bible is. Who is wrong and who is right about the Word of God?

[color="#FF0000"]Not all of the Eastern Rite Catholics have the same doctrines as the Roman Church either but still as considered Roman Catholics. Moreover, I could explain this further but there really isn't a point.[/color]

Right. But, surely you can accept the reasoning that Catholics believe that Christ has some visible representation down here. Given the Oriental Orthodox view of Pope Shenouda III, I would think you could understand this.

[color="#FF0000"]God appointes men to shepard his flock, I don't deny that, what I do deny is that a man is the head of the church and that humans are ever in a state of perfection. I don't believe that anything that humans touch is perfect, only God [Father, Son & Holy Spirit] is perfect.[/color]

Just out of curiousity: which 3 rites/patriachs are you thinking of?

[color="#FF0000"]I was referencing the original 3 rites, as the context was obvious.[/color]

As an adjective, catholic means "universal." As a proper noun, "Catholic" refers to Christians in union with the Pope. This isn't as difficult as you're making it.

[color="#FF0000"]With all due respect, as others have pointed out, you're the one making it into something bigger then what it is...[/color]

You seem to have difficulty understanding that the Oriental Orthodox includes more than the Coptic Church. You also don't seem to understand that the Catholic Church includes more than those who follow the Latin Rite. When you understand this, feel free to re-read my statement. Until then, your forced word substitutions (i.e. Romans) are going to keep you confused, because they don't agree with the language that everyone else speaks.

[color="#FF0000"]This is a humorous statement to me, because you just got done saying that the Oriental Orthodox Church isn't one because we have other rites, outside of the original rite, and now you're saying that the Romans do too, which just kinda makes me laugh because you obviously don't understand the Oriental Orthodox Church, or are manipulating the facts for your agenda.[/color]

Something like, "Almost everyone thought Arianism was right and St. Athanasius was wrong." Do you see the error in such logic?

[color="#FF0000"]I see the error in your theology, which suggests that St. Athanasius was powerless without "the BIG ROMAN POPE SAYING SO..." Seriously go back and re-read what I'd written and then make an informed response.[/color]

Could you quote where I said that the Copts persecuted the Romans?

[quote]I'd say that the penchant for the original Oriental Orthodox to inflict bloodshed on Catholics is sufficient proof that they rejected Chalcedon.[/quote]

[color="#FF0000"]This was just one of your quotes, what's important to note is that the Oriental Orthodox didn't "inflict bloodshed on Catholics", rather it was the Roman Catholics that went to Egypt almost immedicately after Chacledon and began torturing and persecuting Copts because of Chalcedon [as the quote that I provided said].

Since I hardly have the time, I'm not going to keep this "back and fourth" thing going with you, I just don't think it's that's productive.

Reza[/color]

[Mateo el Feo]

Reza, it may be your command of English that's getting in the way. You seem to be interpreting things that have nothing to do with my words.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1233277' date='Apr 7 2007, 01:17 AM']Reza, it may be your command of English that's getting in the way. You seem to be interpreting things that have nothing to do with my words.[/quote]

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1233275' date='Apr 7 2007, 04:03 AM']First, the Syriac Orthodox Church was founded by St. Mark and St. Peter, despite your distortion of history. Second, they never believed in monophysitism, as they condemned it before the Roman Church did, moreover I'd in the previous post gave you a direct quote from Roman's even admitting that we were never monophysites, if you can't accept what your own church clergy has admitted then what's the point in discussing it further?[/quote]You respond without answering my questions. Here are my questions again: [b]Maybe you could share the first document in which the term "miaphysite" occurs in Coptic literature. Was it before Chalcedon (i.e. 451 AD)?[/b] This would also help prove your claim that the Copts rejected Monophysitism before Rome.

As far as "accepting what your own church clergy has admitted," you'll be interested to know that in the same joint statement you quoted, the text begins, "His Holiness John Paul II, Bishop of Rome and [b]Pope of the Catholic Church[/b], and His Holiness Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East and Supreme head of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church". So, according to HH Patriarch Mor Ignatios Zakka I Iwas, John Paul II was the "Pope of the Catholic Church." But, if you don't respect the authority of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch, you can always look at the beginning of the document that Pope Shenouda III signed: "Paul VI, bishop of Rome and [b]Pope of the Catholic Church[/b], and Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and patriarch of the See of St. Mark." So, by all means, accept what your own clergy have admitted. Pope Benedict XVI and all his predecessors are the visible head of the Catholic Church.
[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1233275' date='Apr 7 2007, 04:03 AM']You'd commented on it, but you were simply wrong as His Holiness Pope John Paul II didn't reaffirm Chalcedon in the condemnation of Copts but actually appologized for the council's error. I'm not going to give you a "quote" because it's obvious that you're just going to ignore them. If you'd like to know more, do your own research, as my other quotes were disregarded by your post that came afterwards.[/quote]I really need you to understand: there was NO condemnation of the Copts in Chalcedon. Read the Council documents if you don't believe me. The council condemned the heresy of Monophysitism. I tell you what: I'll give you a link directly from the Vatican. You let me know where Pope John Paul II "actually apologizes for the council's error". From [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19880323en.html"]Pope John Paul II's "General Audience — March 23, 1988" (link)[/url]:[quote]In these reflections we are considering the ancient conciliar definitions which contributed to the formulation of the Church's faith. The Council of Chalcedon (451) made a decisive contribution to this formulation with its solemn definition that in Jesus Christ there are two natures, human and divine, which are united (without mixture) in the one personal subject which is the divine Person of God the Word.

We return to the Council of Chalcedon to say that it confirmed the traditional teaching on the two natures in Christ in opposition to the Monophysite doctrine (monophysis—one nature) propagated after that council. By clarifying that the union of the two natures takes place in one Person, the Council of Chalcedon still more fully set out in relief the duality of these natures, as we saw in the text of the definition previously quoted: "We teach...that one and the same Christ, the only-begotten Son and Lord must be recognized as subsisting in two natures without mixture, change, division or separation. The union does not suppress the difference between the natures; indeed, the proper quality of each remains" (DS 302). This means that the human nature is in no way "absorbed" by the divine nature. Because of his divine nature Christ is "one in Being with the Father according to his divinity"; because of his human nature he is "one in being with us according to his humanity."[/quote]Again, feel free to show me where any Catholic pope has claimed that the Council of Chalcedon contained a single error.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1233275' date='Apr 7 2007, 04:03 AM']Check your own history, you don't think that the "Coptic Catholics" [those that submit to Rome, that are hardly existant in Egypt because Egypt unanimously has agreed with the One Holy Apostolic Catholic Coptic Orthodox Church from the beginning] were created? They were definately created along with alot of other Roman Church sects that submit to Rome.[/quote]That was actually my point. There's no fixed four patriarchs. I just wanted us to agree.
[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1233275' date='Apr 7 2007, 04:03 AM']Not all of the Eastern Rite Catholics have the same doctrines as the Roman Church either but still as considered Roman Catholics. Moreover, I could explain this further but there really isn't a point.[/quote]Actually, this is incorrect. All Catholics must hold the same doctrines. As St. Augustine says, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity." While there is unity in dogmatic/doctrinal teachings, each rite has its own traditions which may vary. For example, things like liturgical languages and rituals, priestly celibacy requirements, and fasting regulations differ among the rites.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1233275' date='Apr 7 2007, 04:03 AM']This is a humorous statement to me, because you just got done saying that the Oriental Orthodox Church isn't one because we have other rites, outside of the original rite, and now you're saying that the Romans do too, which just kinda makes me laugh because you obviously don't understand the Oriental Orthodox Church, or are manipulating the facts for your agenda.[/quote]You clearly don't understand what I wrote.
[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1233275' date='Apr 7 2007, 04:03 AM']Could you quote where I said that the Copts persecuted the Romans?[quote name='Mateo']I'd say that the penchant for the original Oriental Orthodox to inflict bloodshed on Catholics is sufficient proof that they rejected Chalcedon.[/quote]This was just one of your quotes, what's important to note is that the Oriental Orthodox didn't "inflict bloodshed on Catholics", rather it was the Roman Catholics that went to Egypt almost immedicately after Chacledon and began torturing and persecuting Copts because of Chalcedon [as the quote that I provided said].[/quote]Honestly, Reza, if you can see the words "Copt" and "Roman" anywhere in my quote, then you'd better call a good eye doctor.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote]You respond without answering my questions. Here are my questions again: Maybe you could share the first document in which the term "miaphysite" occurs in Coptic literature. Was it before Chalcedon (i.e. 451 AD)? This would also help prove your claim that the Copts rejected Monophysitism before Rome.[/quote]The church never used neither term, till Romans started spreading their propaganda saying that we were monophsyites, it was only then that the Copts decided to define our stance with a particular word, "miaphysites".

[quote]As far as "accepting what your own church clergy has admitted," you'll be interested to know that in the same joint statement you quoted, the text begins, "His Holiness John Paul II, Bishop of Rome and Pope of the Catholic Church, and His Holiness Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, Patriarch of Antioch and All the East and Supreme head of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church". So, according to HH Patriarch Mor Ignatios Zakka I Iwas, John Paul II was the "Pope of the Catholic Church." But, if you don't respect the authority of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch, you can always look at the beginning of the document that Pope Shenouda III signed: "Paul VI, bishop of Rome and Pope of the Catholic Church, and Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and patriarch of the See of St. Mark." So, by all means, accept what your own clergy have admitted. Pope Benedict XVI and all his predecessors are the visible head of the Catholic Church.[/quote]

First, what I said in the original quote was that your own church clergy admitted that they were wrong to refer to us as "monophysites", in regards to documents that His Holiness Pope Shenounda signed, it doesn't mean that His Holiness believe that that should be the title of the Roman Catholic Church, it simply was what Romans believed it should be, and both sides made some compromises for peace.

[quote]I really need you to understand: there was NO condemnation of the Copts in Chalcedon. Read the Council documents if you don't believe me. The council condemned the heresy of Monophysitism. [/quote]And what I really need you to understand is that after Chalcedon, Roman Catholics persecuted the Copts heavily based upon what was written at Chalcedon. I highly doubt that people just randomly decided to persecute Copts, it was based upon the council's actual words. I'll leave it to you to do the research.

[quote]That was actually my point. There's no fixed four patriarchs. I just wanted us to agree.[/quote] No we don't agree because I'd referenced the original four patriarches, you're attempting to do a spin job on my words. Let's go backwards for a minute: I'd originally said that there were four original patriarches from different rites, none was "the head of the church" but their own rites because God is the head of the Church.... of those original 4, different demographics were given their own rite after much time. You'd attempted to spin my words and say that the Oriental Orthodox isn't "one church" because we have different rites [Etheopian Orthodox, Eritrean, etc], when the Roman Church also has different rites. Now I gotta hand it to you, because your manipulation or 'spin' of what I said was cleaver, but it was just that.

[quote], this is incorrect. All Catholics must hold the same doctrines. As St. Augustine says, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity." While there is unity in dogmatic/doctrinal teachings, each rite has its own traditions which may vary. For example, things like liturgical languages and rituals, priestly celibacy requirements, and fasting regulations differ among the rites.[/quote]You don't think that fasting regulations is a doctrinal issue? Priestly celibacy requirments is a doctrinal issue? Those are just that, different doctrinal stances.

[quote]Honestly, Reza, if you can see the words "Copt" and "Roman" anywhere in my quote, then you'd better call a good eye doctor.[/quote] And honestly if you think there's any difference between Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholics having various rites, then you need a serious history lesson.