What is the difference between The Coptic Orthodox Church and The Catholic Church in beliefs, rites, rituals, traditions, etc. The whole smear. I am researching this for a Sunday School projetc and websites are really appreciated...
Im doing this particular topic because i think it would be most beneficial to me cuz i go to a Catholic School and i take a subject Titled RELIGION where we learn about the Catholic Religion, and i don't want to get it ,ixed up with ours, please help me and pray for me....
Comments
this is the link to the previous topic...u need more info???
in fact i was in catholic school fro prek-soph year(present day)
now this will take a bit but whats important is history and facts, if u try to go on beliefs, u wont know whos who.
lets start with the history side: the way they split, at first they were one, with 5 patriarchs one in each major city, one in Rome, one in Antioch, one in the Bizantine empire(i think), and one in alexandria, i dont remember the last one,
now we know at this time that rome is powerful, having taken over most of the known world. So the patriarch in Rome decided to name himself pope, better that the others. When the others disagreed and split off thats what the result was.
alexandria and the bizantine empire(russia area) formed the orthodox church and rome made the catholic church( im rusty on details, been a while, i dont know where the other two are)
now thats why russia is mostly orthodox and we all know that mark was the patriarch in alexandria. so rome then being the world power is now catholic so thats y catholic i guess is so popular because rome was its base.
now i will continue, but i want to get my info straight, if i got it wrong plz correct me. ill continue later.
Awad was right, just one comment. At the Council of Nicia (I think) they named the ‎Patriarch of Alexandria to be the Pope, one and only. What started it all was the ‎Chalcedonic Council. We, the Pope of Alexandria, was NOT invited, when he went to ‎defended the faith and ideology, he was persecuted. (There is a story about him, ‎forgot who was the pope at the time, I believe Alexandous, they took his teeth out ‎with a hammer, he sent his them to the church in Alexandria with a letter saying ‎behold what I am going thru for the Orthodox faith to strengthen the people there) ‎This is where it all started. And these are the Major differences as of now.‎
‎•‎ Chalcedonic council
‎•‎ They believe that Virgin Mary is a co-redeemer with Jesus Christ
‎•‎ They believe in the baptism by sprinkling of water
‎•‎ They believe that their pope is infallible (Doesn't make mistakes, doesn’t' sin)‎
‎•‎ They believe in Purgatory (a place where good people that sinned will go to ‎temporarily before going to heaven)‎
‎•‎ They believe that Saint Peter is higher ranking than the other disciples and ‎that he holds the keys to heaven.‎
‎•‎ Dates for Christmas and Easter
‎
On the other hand, here is what we believe in
‎•‎ We do NOT believe or condone the Chalcedonic council
‎•‎ We believe that Virgin Mary is higher than all the saint, but she is NOT a co-‎redeemer with Jesus. she is highly regarded in our church, but not as high as ‎the Catholics put her (almost a goddess)‎
‎•‎ We believe that baptism should be by submerging in water like Jesus did
‎•‎ We believe that the pope CAN make sins and mistakes.‎
‎•‎ We do NOT believe in Purgatory. You are judged based on what you have ‎done here.‎
‎•‎ We believe that St. Peter is equal to the rest of the disciples, he doesn’t hold ‎the keys to heaven or any other place for that matter.‎
‎•‎ Christmas and Easter dates we disagree with them. (Easter, we are right, ‎Christmas, there is no Right or wrong, its just different ways of looking at the ‎calendar)‎
‎
I believe that sums up the major differences. One other thing, they are more relaxed ‎than us in their beliefs, they let go of a lot of traditional things like Fasting, the ‎importance of prayer, simple rituals and dogmatic beliefs. That pretty much sums it ‎up.‎
In the beginning of Christianity there was only one Church. The 5 partiarchs/bishops were in (JAARC) - Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople & Rome. The bishop of Rome was always considered first among equals, but never the head of the church and not infallable. The bishop in Rome had the special responsibility of presiding over councils because Rome was the seat of government. When the Roman empire shifted east to Constantinpal the power base in the Church shifted also. Many other things were going on in the Roman Church including the addition of Filioque in the Creed and the use of unleavened bread for communion. The Roman bishop was also being threatened by pagan Germanic tribes. In fact, I have read that the pope was heavily infuenced by German clerics in forming his theology of the papacy. I don't remember the exact details but during a Liturgy celebrated by the partiarch in Constantinople one Sunday, a representative of the pope in Rome walked in and slapped an excommunication order on the altar. As has always been the case in Orthodoxy, no bishop can act alone nor does he have jurisdiction or control over another bishop. Seeing that the bishop in Rome had overstepped his authority, the bishop in Constantinople sent an excommunication order back to Rome for the pope. (Are you following the "who's on first" story line?) The 2 bishops had "excommunited" each other in about 1054 (I think that is the date) but there are no records of a formal break and there are some records that indicate they commerated each other's names during liturgy up until about the time of the Crusades, so even though the schism is mentioned as 1054 the official break certainly didn't come until the 1200's. Of course, the churches were also deeply separated by then because of world politics and the rise of Islam in the East. But the big lesson here is that the 4 bishops (Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch & Constantinople) stayed united in faith and communion, while Rome was cut off from the original Church. With the growing idea in the western church that the Pope is the head of the Church and has been given the "keys of the kingdom" as a successor of Peter (a theory which Orthodoxy has never accepted because it was not believed in the early Church), the break was inevitable. You could almost say that Roman Catholocism was the original Prostetant denomination since it broke away from the Church. When Catholics (I hope I have this right) profess Apostolic succession they mean that they interpret Scripture to mean that Peter handed the keys of the kingdom to the Bishop in Rome (a simplified explanation of a complex idea) and that they profess the faith as handed down by the Apostles. As Orthodox we believe that Christ established his Church on Peter's profession of faith, not on Peter himself, therefore we hand down the faith as it was professed and taught by the Apostles. I believe that Church history would indicate that the Church never interpreted the position of the bishop of Rome to hold the power that he now professes, but that this is new theology. And hoping that I am not misleading anyone with data (since I'm not a church historian) I think that the ideal of papal infallability is only about 150 years old. The idea of the Virgin Mary being co-redemptor of the world is even newer than that. I believe that the Orthodox Church would reject both ideas believing that the faith was handed down intact and complete by the Apostles.
I hope this helps.
Claudia Macrina
[shadow=purple,left][glow=purple,2,300]- Mr. Coptic Orthodox[/shadow][/glow]
The term Pope, was not, at first official. It was a term of endeerment, originally, the bishops were just called bishops. At the council of Nicea, The bishops of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome were given the title Patriarch. At the council of Ephesus, the bishop of Constantinople was proclaimed a patriarch (this may have happened at Nicea, I forget). And the bishop of Jerusalem became a patriarch in the council of Chalcedon. The Patriarch of Alexandria was also called Pope, meaning father. LATER, the Patriarch of Rome was also called Pope.
Now the Pope of Rome was always with the Pope of Alexandria in fighting Gnosticism, Arianism and Nestorianism. When Saint and Patriarch Athanasius was exiled, he went to Rome, where the Pope of Rome held a council to defend Athanasius. It was also here where Athanasius first spread monasticism in the west.
The first break between our two churches happened in the council of Chalcedon. The difference here might be confusing. Our Pope, Dioscorus, proclaimed that Jesus had a united nature of man and God, or in Greek, Mia Physis. The opposing side, to whom the Pope of Rome, Leo, supported, believed in two natures, man and God. But also, many Nestorians (including Nestorius himself) supported Leo, which compounded the problem. It is important to state here that Dioscorus' terminology was used by Cyril without objection, but in this council, Leo decided to reject Saint Cyril's words. Dioscorus was also accused of murdering the former patriarch of Constantinople, Flavian. Dioscorus was excommunicated, and removed from his seat in Alexandria. The bishops from Egypt were forced to accept and sign the Chalcedonian statement of faith (two natures NOT a united nature) but immediately rejected this when returning to Egypt. These two statements of faith are actually quite similar, and hopefully we can agree on common ground to restore communion with our Orthodox brothers. In Syria, several people also accepted 'Miaphystism' and these were the ancestors of our sister church, the Syrian Orthodox Church.
Most egyptians followed Dioscorus but were accused of supporting an older heresy of 'Monophysitism'. This means 'one nature' and rejects the human nature of Jesus. Now remember that this is innaccurate, Dioscorus supported Mia physis which says that the human and Divine nature were united in Jesus. From this point on, Alexandria would have two patriarchs, one would be and Egyptian, who followed Cyril's and Dioscorus' creed, another would appointed by the emperor of Constantinople. The followers of Dioscorus were called 'Copts' by the muslim invaders two centuries laters.
Our church has worked with the Catholics and other Orthodox chruches recently to try to bridge this gap in theology, hopefully we will succeed in the near future. :)