Jihad Is A Much Larger Threat Than Nazism

[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.

[Mateo el Feo]

Thanks for the reply...
[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1233290' date='Apr 7 2007, 06:30 AM']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]Do you know date the Copts defined their stance on the term "miaphysite"?

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1233290' date='Apr 7 2007, 06:30 AM']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]For the sake of unity, yes. It is a noble goal to find common ground.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1233290' date='Apr 7 2007, 06:30 AM']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]How much more can I do? I've read the Council documents...the "council's actual words." If only one of us has read the documents, who needs to do research?
[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1233290' date='Apr 7 2007, 06:30 AM']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]Here's the problem, Reza. You've got it in your head that I've got some secret agenda about the four rites being "proof" that the Oriental Orthodox isn't "one church." Honestly, that wasn't my point. If am going to discuss the question of "one church" with you, I will be up front about it, as I have in previous conversations. No secret agenda...no manipulation...no spin.
[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1233290' date='Apr 7 2007, 06:30 AM']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]This isn't a matter of what I think. In the Catholic Church, these issues are categorized as matters of discipline, not doctrines.
[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1233290' date='Apr 7 2007, 06:30 AM']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.[/quote]Totally misses the point of my statement. I asked you to provide a quote. You couldn't.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1233286' date='Apr 7 2007, 02:58 AM']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.[/quote]
The term [i]mia physis[/i] was used by St. Cyril of Alexandria in his "Five Tomes Against Nestorius" in A.D. 430 in order to emphasize the reality of the incarnation in opposition to the Nestorian heresy; for, as he put it, after the union there is ". . . one nature of God the Logos incarnate ([i]mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene[/i])" [St. Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Nestorius," I, 1, 6, 33]. Now, the use of this term (i.e., [i]mia physis[/i]) does not involve the blending of divinity and humanity in Christ; instead, it simply affirms the interpenetration ([i]perichoresis[/i]) of the two natures in the one person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) of the incarnate Logos. To put it another way, St. Cyril held that the Hypostatic Union involves a union of the two natures in a way that affirms their actual inseparability, without confusion or change; while also affirming their proper distinction [i]tei theoriai monei[/i] (in contemplation only).

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1233738' date='Apr 7 2007, 03:49 PM']The term [i]mia physis[/i] was used by St. Cyril of Alexandria in his "Five Tomes Against Nestorius" in A.D. 430 in order to emphasize the reality of the incarnation in opposition to the Nestorian heresy; for, as he put it, after the union there is ". . . one nature of God the Logos incarnate ([i]mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene[/i])" [St. Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Nestorius," I, 1, 6, 33]. Now, the use of this term (i.e., [i]mia physis[/i]) does not involve the blending of divinity and humanity in Christ; instead, it simply affirms the interpenetration ([i]perichoresis[/i]) of the two natures in the one person ([i]hypostasis[/i]) of the incarnate Logos. To put it another way, St. Cyril held that the Hypostatic Union involves a union of the two natures in a way that affirms their actual inseparability, without confusion or change; while also affirming their proper distinction [i]tei theoriai monei[/i] (in contemplation only).[/quote]

[Lounge Daddy]

wow
it's amazing where and how far a post can sometimes go

[hoosieranna]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1234793' date='Apr 8 2007, 02:21 AM']wow
it's amazing where and how far a post can sometimes go [/quote]

No kidding. I had a request for translation turn into a comparison of Latin linguistics over the centuries.