Hi,
When the catholics say that "they have the correct faith" , and hence everyone else (even the Orthodox are heretics), their excuse for such disturbing comments (to which i'd im trying to answer!!) is "Our Lord Said to Saint Peter: Peter , you are the Rock on which i will build my Church".
Given that Christ can have only have ONE bride, then who is this bride? Where is Peter's Church?
On the other hand, in Isiah, he clearly states the existance of the Coptic Church - i.e. : The Alter in the midst of the land of Egypt (which obviously refers to yours truley).
What can we answer them???
Also, where can i find a complete account on the history of the Churche?? I.e. how we all came to be divided?
No matter what, Catholics see us as heretics. THere is a group of catholics, called the "Traditionalists" who refuse to accept Vatican II - what a mess! Why are they so anti-Orthodox?
Thanks for your assistance,
Comments
Its responses like that that will help bridge the gap of misunderstanding.
About St Peter, I believe the Lord meant the foundation of the first Church in Jerusalem.
And wasn't St Paul the one who mainly preached and converted the Roman Christians?
The Lord foresaw the attitude and policy of the RCs and He did not guide St Peter to write his Gospel, that is why the RCs claim that St Peter "dictated" his Gospel to his companion St Mark (while St Peter was not at all a "dictator"). If I remember correctly, St Mark preached a lot to the Romans himself and was very useful to St Paul, before returning back to the North African shores and to Alexandria, Egypt.
When exactly did St Mark write down the Gospel and in what language?
The Head of the Church is Our Lord Jesus Christ.
The first leader of the Church in Jerusalem was St. Iakovos (James), the brother of the Lord; not St. Peter.
Regarding the "rock" spoken of by Christ, on which He would found His Church, very few of the Fathers see this as a reference to St. Peter. The vast majority of them see it as St. Peter's confession of faith (that Christ is the Son of God); that the Church is established upon this Truth.
This is why Christ said "You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my Church". You'll notice that the feminine petra is used when refering to the foundation of the Church. I don't believe the reason for St. Peter's not writing a Gospel has anything to do with the ecclesiological heresies of the RC. If that were the case, the book of Romans would not have been written because it was a major source of inspiration for Protestant doctrines, or the Apocalypse because of all the crazy teachings modern Evangelicals claim to derive from it.
Nor do I think the attribution of St. Mark's Gospel to St. Peter is unique to Catholicism, although I might be wrong. Most date it to about 60-70A.D. as far as I'm aware. Like all the other books of the NT, it was written in Greek.
I just logged into Tasbeha.org and was reading the Pope's book on Saint Mark. Its true the RC's are saying that the Gospel of our Beloved Church patriarch Saint Mark was merely someone that was led by Saint Peter.
We have to know how to defend such things! So, its important your answers. I think Ortho11 and John, BOTH of u are right actually.
Neither of your opinions is exclusive to the other.
1) We can definately say taht Saint Mark's gospel was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and not by Saint Peter (who dictated to St Mark!). [please go to tasbeha.org and read the book on St Mark, by HH Shenouda III]
2) Saint Peter being the rock "on which i will build my Church" - His FAITH is most likely the rock on which Christ will build His Church. That means the Church would be in anyone's heart where the Saint Holy Spirit abides. If you believe that Christ is the Son of God, then you too are like Saint Peter in whom Christ will also establish His Church.
3) If Saint Mark was not so important, then why did the Italians keep his holy body in Venice?? Our great Papa Kirellous went along and demanded it back from them! Their excuse was this: The body of an evangelist was far greater (worth more) than that of anyone else.
Saint Mark was the only apostle to have written a Gospel. This is his own account. We start any gospel by saying :"The Gospel according to Saint ... , may his blessings be with us all Amen." We don't say :"THe Gospel according to Saint Peter, may the blessings of Saint Peter be with us amen, when reading the Gospel of Saint Mark!".
I thought that was so offensive of them! I can't believe it!
Anyhow, if Saint Peter is NOT the head of the Church - which we all know, its Jesus Christ - then we all ought to have the right faith/dogma in which our faith establishes the Church within our hearts. It means also that anyone who DOES believe in the Orthodox creed, and who is not orthodox is really Orthodox?. (this is a question, not a statement)
Does that make sense? I mean, let's say there's this catholic community (the traditionalists under Mgsr Lefebvre) who do not believe in Vatican II. Let's say they do not even believe in Purgatory, nor the filoque NOR the immaculate Conception, but are priests under Pope Benedict - can they have holy communion in our Church??? Isnt it meant to be faith then that unites someone to a Church??
1) We can definately say taht Saint Mark's gospel was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and not by Saint Peter (who dictated to St Mark!). [please go to tasbeha.org and read the book on St Mark, by HH Shenouda III]
Of course it is. No one can deny that. Also it was proved that st Mark's gospel symbolizes one of the 4 incorporeal beasts that are around the Throne of God. Well at the beginning they really didn't know it was. Until they found out it is and kept it as a blessing i guess. Well if that happens, the church i am sure will come a little closer. Not fully merge, but there will be more similarities and less differences. Right now many bishop led by HEB Bishoy are already working on counting the Greek Church as one of our sister church since they are closer to us the Catholics.
Don’t worry vassilios, we'll not leave this earth before there is one victorious church.
a) Your faith, and
b) The differences of your faith with other denominations
At first, i didnt care. I thought, well , if they believe that Jesus Christ IS the Son of God, great ... who cares... but that's dangerous. For us to divide over differences, it means that what we were dividing over was in fact worth separating a member from the body of Christ.
I mean... if the doctor says: We'll have to amputate your arm - would you not try and save it? Unless the reason for amputation was so important that it meant it would be better to amputate your arm than all the other members suffer.
What we've been through, as a Church, cannot be forgotten. I think its our responsibility to educate and explain to others WHY believe in what we believe.
I have no idea Mina what u mean by Victorious Church. I thought the Victorious Church was in Heaven. I was hoping to be one Militant Church.
What we've been through, as a Church, cannot be forgotten. I think its our responsibility to educate and explain to others WHY believe in what we believe.
That’s what our church been doing from the beginning of its age until when another church excommunicated us from a consil.
There is a great set of sermons by Fr. Anthony Messeh called "Deal or No Deal? (click on the link)
this set shows you how our orthodox church is the straight way of Christianity since the apostles’ time.
in one of the monasteries, i think may be the Sorian, there is something called the door of prophecies. that door has the stages of the church through the ages. the door was made by a monk in around the 3rd century. the door starts first with one big cross in the beginning and ends with one in the last. now between, there is a part that have many cross on it, another that have the number of the original five churches (can't remember them), one have helal, which is the half moon, (shows the Islam era), none have the cross of Hitler, (shows the era of wwii and hitler), and another one had many crosses before the last one that had one cross.
Also Christ will come take the victorious church up to heaven.
Just wanted to add one more point to the previous responses.
During one of the sermons I heard, abouna says, when he was talking about the catholics claiming that Saint Peter IS the rock of the church based on that verse. He goes, and meant it first as a joke, "I would tell them to stay away from that verse, cuz later on, in the same chapter, Jesus tells saint Peter 'Away from me you Satan'. so please pick another verse, cuz this one doesn't turn out too good for Saint Peter" What he meant was, if Jesus Originally meant Saint Peter as the rock, then He wouldn't call him Satan.
He went on to say "hope they (the catholics) don't pay attention to other verses like 'Tend to my sheep' that Our Lord said to Saint Peter, lest they start thinking that the Lord only trusted him"
You also mentioned the "ONE BRIDE". The Bride usually refers to the human spirit or the church, in the sense that She (the church) is the congregation of the believers.
Unfortunately, and it is sad to say, that most of the splits in the church were based on political differences, not dogma. A Patriarch who doesn't like the fact that the Pope of Alexandria is "THE POPE" and leader, so he tries to undermine him.
Just thought I would share these points with you.
Unfortunately, and it is sad to say, that most of the splits in the church were based on political differences, not dogma. A Patriarch who doesn't like the fact that the Pope of Alexandria is "THE POPE" and leader, so he tries to undermine him.
actually i think that mostly apply for the Catholic church.
Unfortunately, and it is sad to say, that most of the splits in the church were based on political differences, not dogma. A Patriarch who doesn't like the fact that the Pope of Alexandria is "THE POPE" and leader, so he tries to undermine him.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Of the ancient Patriarchates, both the Patriarch of Rome and the Patriarch of Alexandria held the honourary title of Pope. Only someone who held a heretical RC-type ecclesiology would speak of "THE Pope".
The Patriarch of Alexandria is the head of that particular patriarchate and does not have jurisdiction outside it. The same applies to all other Patriarchs, and it was the Bishop of Rome's departure from this principle and his unfounded claim to universal jurisdiction that led to the current RC ecclesiology.
[quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5066.msg68264#msg68264 date=1173225376]
[quote author=Coptic boy link=topic=5066.msg68259#msg68259 date=1173214717]
Unfortunately, and it is sad to say, that most of the splits in the church were based on political differences, not dogma. A Patriarch who doesn't like the fact that the Pope of Alexandria is "THE POPE" and leader, so he tries to undermine him.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Of the ancient Patriarchates, both the Patriarch of Rome and the Patriarch of Alexandria held the honourary title of Pope. Only someone who held a heretical RC-type ecclesiology would speak of "THE Pope".
The Patriarch of Alexandria is the head of that particular patriarchate and does not have jurisdiction outside it. The same applies to all other Patriarchs, and it was the Bishop of Rome's departure from this principle and his unfounded claim to universal jurisdiction that led to the current RC ecclesiology.
My 2 cents is this at least: If the catholics weren't so power hungry, then the protestants would never have existed. They'd have still been one with the catholics.
Shame on them
My 2 cents is this at least: If the catholics weren't so power hungry, then the protestants would never have existed. They'd have still been one with the catholics.
Yes and no. The Reformation was caused by a number of different factors, both theological and political.
From a theological perspective, I do not believe the then Pope's rejection of Luther's teachings regarding sola scriptura, sola fide and sola gratia had much to do with his hunger for power.
However, things such as the increasing nationalism that was taking place within Europe, that saw local monarchs and nobles wanting to separate themselves economically from the influence of the Pope (who was pretty much the King of Europe) and bring the land belonging to the RCC into their own posession, were issues which were a great driving force behind the Reformation and closely linked to the secular power of the Papacy. But is this Europe's aristocracy being power hungry, or the RCC?
The formation of the Church of England was the result of the Pope (quite rightly) denying King Henry to divorce his wife; something that annoyed him enough to break from Rome and declare himself the head of the Anglican Church (before anyone says anything, I realise this is an oversimplification). So this is an issue related to neither the Pope's hunger for power, nor any theological issue.
[quote author=vassilios link=topic=5066.msg68282#msg68282 date=1173261662]
My 2 cents is this at least: If the catholics weren't so power hungry, then the protestants would never have existed. They'd have still been one with the catholics.
Yes and no. The Reformation was caused by a number of different factors, both theological and political.
From a theological perspective, I do not believe the then Pope's rejection of Luther's teachings regarding sola scriptura, sola fide and sola gratia had much to do with his hunger for power.
However, things such as the increasing nationalism that was taking place within Europe, that saw local monarchs and nobles wanting to separate themselves economically from the influence of the Pope (who was pretty much the King of Europe) and bring the land belonging to the RCC into their own posession, were issues which were a great driving force behind the Reformation and closely linked to the secular power of the Papacy. But is this Europe's aristocracy being power hungry, or the RCC?
The formation of the Church of England was the result of the Pope (quite rightly) denying King Henry to divorce his wife; something that annoyed him enough to break from Rome and declare himself the head of the Anglican Church (before anyone says anything, I realise this is an oversimplification). So this is an issue related to neither the Pope's hunger for power, nor any theological issue.
Hi Orthodox 11,
Great response. Have u also ever considered or been head-hunted for a position as a senior archbishop or vice-president-patriarch? You've definately got the basic requirements.
The answer is Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, whose injunction to us all was to love one another - pretty bad job we've made of that, alas.
It is always difficult to write about this matter, but we must remember His command, and that He told us that it would be through our love for each other that we would be recognized as His disciples. Fact is that we do not know why He allows so many Christian denominations, although we can see clearly enough where they came from - our own human prideful behaviour.
We should show brotherly affection to other Christians - and if they strike us, turn the other cheek. The Coptic Church has been outstanding in its witness. Although persecuted - first by Roman pagans, then by Melkite troops, and then by Muslims, it has not resorted to violence, it has not broken His commandments, and it has been the Church of martyrs; from that blood has come a powerful testimony to the Christian way. If the great Coptic Church is now as strong as it is, it is because of its faithfulness.
Pope Shenouda is one of the most impressive figures in modern Christianity; he is not a proud man who claims 'primacy', he is a humble servant of Our Lord, who shows in his life and his words what it is to be a Christian. He does not seek power or glory - which is why the Lord gives him both.
If the Roman Catholics choose to take the view that their Pope is 'head of the Church', let them; it is not our task to chide them, but through the way we live, to bear witness to Our Lord. If we do that, we show we know who the head of the Church really is.
In Christ,
John
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
The answer is Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, whose injunction to us all was to love one another - pretty bad job we've made of that, alas.
It is always difficult to write about this matter, but we must remember His command, and that He told us that it would be through our love for each other that we would be recognized as His disciples. Fact is that we do not know why He allows so many Christian denominations, although we can see clearly enough where they came from - our own human prideful behaviour.
We should show brotherly affection to other Christians - and if they strike us, turn the other cheek. The Coptic Church has been outstanding in its witness. Although persecuted - first by Roman pagans, then by Melkite troops, and then by Muslims, it has not resorted to violence, it has not broken His commandments, and it has been the Church of martyrs; from that blood has come a powerful testimony to the Christian way. If the great Coptic Church is now as strong as it is, it is because of its faithfulness.
Pope Shenouda is one of the most impressive figures in modern Christianity; he is not a proud man who claims 'primacy', he is a humble servant of Our Lord, who shows in his life and his words what it is to be a Christian. He does not seek power or glory - which is why the Lord gives him both.
If the Roman Catholics choose to take the view that their Pope is 'head of the Church', let them; it is not our task to chide them, but through the way we live, to bear witness to Our Lord. If we do that, we show we know who the head of the Church really is.
In Christ,
John
I think its a priviledge John to have u as a Copt. Welcome! lol
I loved what u have to say. Im not disagreeing with you; its just, that for us in the west, we mix with Catholics a lot. I asked this question not because I wish to teach them anything - no! Far from it; its because of their arrogance in telling me that we have the wrong faith because we 're not obedient to Benedict the 16th!!!
That has to be answered!!! Im the last person to criticise any denomination; but when they start to tell me that our church is "evil" - and "wrong" - i won't sit quietly.
I respect and love your zeal for the Lord; may He bless and keep you.
I always feel that when other Christians attack another Church, in the way you describe Roman Catholics criticising our Church, that it reflects badly on those doing the criticism. If they were as sure as they claim, they would be able to manifest Christ's love; hate is not of Him.
One of the things that drew me to the Coptic Church is its deep sense of itself as the Church of Christ, which gives it an inner calmness which triumphs over all those, of whatever faith, who seek to harm it. It is the Church of Christ, and even the gates of Hell will not prevail against it; on this we have His assurance.
But, in this world, we do need those with your zeal - and you have my deep respect as I read your posts here, which are fired always by love for Him who gave Himself up even to death upon the Cross for us.
In Christ,
John
Thanks for your very kind words. I don't think im particularly a "good christian" , but i think we should look at all apostolic churches with respect, so when my Church is being knocked down by another apostolic Church, it offends me deeply.
The way I see it is this:
a) Each apostle were the 1st bishops of the Church. Did any of them agree that they could NOT preach without Saint Peter's blessing? Christ said to all of them :"Go and baptise everyone in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit". He didnt' say : "Go first and ordain yourself as servents of Saint Peter". They were all equal in their ministry. I mean, Christ didn't tell them to be baptised AGAIN by saint Peter, so they could all serve under Saint peter. Also, the Holy Spirit didn't just fall on the head of Saint peter. It came upon EACH of the disciples. It wasnt as if "Saint peter" had something no one else had; and therefore had to ordain himself bishops and priests.
Having said that, was saint Mark was an Evangelist, but he wasn't a disciple. I mean, he wasn't one of the 12. Although the day of Pentecost happened in His House (YEAH, GO COPTS!!) , did he too receive this flame of fire on his head???
b) All the apostles were discussing which of them is the greatest... Christ brought a little child and said "Whoever is like this child is the greatest in the Kingdom of God". So, the attitude of "who is the leader/head" of the Church, i.e. who is greatest, IN ITSELF, is absolutely unchristian.
The fact that they are still talking about Saint peter being the greatest and Chief of the apostles, then it reminds me of point (b) above; and this is very wrong. Every time i even read that story, im amazed at Christ's patience and humility at not even rebuking them for having such a conversation, yet He explained to them how to be great in God's eyes.
Because they, from the beginning, were concerned about who was greater (between the Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople, and their Pope in 1054), they excommunicated the Orthodox patriarch DURING the mass at the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople.
This CHurch has now become a mosque. Go figure!
Is this the attitude of leadership anyway? Its the same attitude of "Im better than u, and if u can't accept it, then i'm going to excommunicate u". Its totally wrong, unchristian, and unholy.
Anything that brings about division WITHIN the Church is NOT from God. This attitude of them being the "head of the Church" has brought already division from us, and created protestantism.
We are, I think in agreement.
The rest is a matter of temperament. For me, the words of St. Isaac the Syrian resonate: and also Those who in vainglory presume to criticise other Christians tend, alas, to run against the spirit shown by Our Lord Himself, as you so eloquently show.
The Holy Orthodox Church has no need to boast - save in the Cross of Christ, and the Coptic Church bears such witness to that daily that it has no need to defend itself - against it the gates of hell cannot prevail.
In Christ,
John