[quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=6661.msg89276#msg89276 date=1212494638] The difference - which many people, including senior hierarchs regard as semantics - is whether it is appropriate to speak of two natures after the union.
That's it?? Whether its "appropriate to speak about the two natures after union"?
We're losing out on good greek food and endless chances to pray in a greek Church in Paris over "if its appropriate to speak"....
Can anyone here claim compensation from the Roman Catholic church for punitive damages inccurred as a result of them causing division between the EO and the OO???
The Catholic Church has been a great witness to Christianity in the West; the corruption during the Middle-Ages is nothing compared to stupidity and laughable doctrines that we see in even great "Reformed" churches such as the Church of England and the Lutheran Church. These churches were considered more orthodox than Catholicism, but we can easily observe now, since they have been easy prey for silly things like Pentecostalism and Revisionists, that any church will have dark apathy and atrophy of spiritual guidance at one point or another.
The Orthodox churches were not immune to heresy; we had our fair share of heretical bishops and laity. Some of our Popes taught purgatory (for example Pope John III to priest Theodore). We had some corrupt dealings apparently with the Ethiopian Church; and them vice versa. The Pope before Pope Kyrillos was apparently corrupt, or his secretry was corrupt, allowing people to buy the priesthood!
EOC has had their controversies, such as Iconclastism. We had a brief period in the 19th century, when one of our Popes destroyed many icons because he accused his people of idolatory.
God has called us to holiness; but being men in the flesh, without the spiritual eye (nous), we have fallen woefully fro the mark. Yet, as God dealt with Israel in their faithlessness in the OT, God deals with us, still bringing us together back to orthodoxy- which I pray to God is Orthodoxy!
[quote author=clay link=topic=6661.msg89282#msg89282 date=1212500735] Also my understanding was that Pope Leo pardoned Eutyches first, and requested Pope Dioscorus to forgive him? Ironic.
How ridiculous was that? So Pope Leo I first decided that Eutyches error by following Docetism was due to "lack of skill" rather than having malicious doctrine, and then later after Eutyches was excommunicated by Flavian of Constantinople, changed his mind, and agreed that Eutyches should be punished, even though Eutyches had already confessed to Pope Dioscoros who was sure of his orthodoxy.
Listen, I know Ortho11 - he's not Greek. He's Norwegian. He speaks English, Norwegian and Rastafarian fluently
QT, What language is Rastafarian?
It is what Jamaican 'rastas' speak. It is a modified form of English. I would actually consider it a modified vocabulary and not a separate language. Why a man of theology like Orthodox11 would know it is beyond me.
[quote author=Severus link=topic=6661.msg89349#msg89349 date=1212528910] It is what Jamaican 'rastas' speak. It is a modified form of English. I would actually consider it a modified vocabulary and not a separate language. Why a man of theology like Orthodox11 would know it is beyond me.
The Jamaicans dont speak a language called Rasta. Rasta is a movement. But i am not sure what QT meant.While the Official language of Jamaica is english,they have their own dialect which they call 'Patios" , a mixture of broken english and creole (native language)
[quote author=Hezekiel link=topic=6661.msg89351#msg89351 date=1212529803] [quote author=Severus link=topic=6661.msg89349#msg89349 date=1212528910] It is what Jamaican 'rastas' speak. It is a modified form of English. I would actually consider it a modified vocabulary and not a separate language. Why a man of theology like Orthodox11 would know it is beyond me.
The Jamaicans dont speak a language called Rasta. Rasta is a movement. But i am not sure what QT meant.While the Official language of Jamaica is english,they have their own dialect which they call 'Patios" , a mixture of broken english and creole (native language)
Thanks for the link. This info is something new. I have always viewed "Rastafari" as a religious movement. Infact, the term itself "Rasteferi" is Geez. "Ras" meaning head and 'Teferi" the "feared one". This was the name of Emperor Haile Selassie ("Haile" means Power and Selassie refers to the "Trinity"), before he became king and the Jamaicans revere him, baptising themsleves as 'Rastafarians'.
Thanks for the link. This info is something new. I have always viewed "Rastafari" as a religious movement. Infact, the term itself "Rasteferi" is Geez. "Ras" meaning head and 'Teferi" the "feared one". This was the name of Emperor Haile Selassie ("Haile" means Power and Selassie refers to the "Trinity"), before he became king and the Jamaicans revere him, baptising themsleves as 'Rastafarians'.
Dis is da arta-ducks language dat me and my man Arta-ducks11 sp-eek all da time to-geda. We communi-kate in dis language when we become closer to da Cheurch of Gud.
There's nothing more enjoyable than reading Psalm 1 in the style of a rastafarian.
[quote author=coptic pharaoh link=topic=6661.msg89377#msg89377 date=1212547593] sorry to ruin your fun, but is this topic about jamicains or about Church Unity???? if it is about jamaicans tell me so i can join you...
Smile Mon...
Its about church unity mon. Yer jem-aye-cun? I'm lur'nin ta tulk jem-aye-cun from artadux11 ye nah...
But i'm only talking like that to make orthodox11 feel at home. To welcome him, to show him that he's not alone.
But yes, you are right, this is talking about Church Unity.
To get back on track, the idea now is that we are divided OVER NOTHING.
Prove me wrong. At the end of the day, its NADA our differences.
[quote author=QT_PA_2T link=topic=6661.msg89379#msg89379 date=1212548165] [quote author=coptic pharaoh link=topic=6661.msg89377#msg89377 date=1212547593] sorry to ruin your fun, but is this topic about jamicains or about Church Unity???? if it is about jamaicans tell me so i can join you...
Smile Mon...
Its about church unity mon. Yer jem-aye-cun? I'm lur'nin ta tulk jem-aye-cun from artadux11 ye nah...
But i'm only talking like that to make orthodox11 feel at home. To welcome him, to show him that he's not alone.
But yes, you are right, this is talking about Church Unity.
To get back on track, the idea now is that we are divided OVER NOTHING.
Prove me wrong. At the end of the day, its NADA our differences.
Even if we divided over something trivia, and that is debatable, there is still the other 4 'Ecunemical' Councils that we did not attend. Perhaps, Orthodoxy was no preserved in these Councils- and this is in the domain of our Theologians and theirs- not us. Let us not get ahead of ourselves.
Yes, so what then is the situation with regards to Unity between us and the Greeks? Surely, the monks on Mt. Athos would love that? They seem to be more coptic orthodox than our own monks (celebrating Christmas on the 7th january etc..).
Look, the more I see the news, and listen to what's going on, the more I see people coming back to Orthodoxy. A LOT are returning back to Orthodoxy. Anything Orthodox.
Whilst we are bickering about semantics, when we both agree on Christological issues to a fine detail, then we should not be divided. Its a disgrace. How is it the Orthodox Church can be divided?? This is odd!!! The catholics can be divided.. that's normal, and of course the baptists and protestants can be divided.. but not us. Its a scandal.
If the Orthodox Church is divided, then do u think that will encourage others to become Orthodox?? No.. they'll think we are just the same as the catholics and protestants.
QT, that is your opinion. It is still unsubstantiated, since the schism is much more complex than the issues you addressed here. Whilst I am reserved to call the EOC as heretics, I am not going to also say that they are completely Orthodox. This requires much more sobriety and effort to come to that conclusion. We have not read all of what happened in those councils. So, keep your opinion to yourself. Calling it a scandal when you don't know all the facts is premature. I share your opinion in a way, but I trust that it is up to God, if He wills, to join us. Our bickering won't do anything for the glory of God- that's for sure.
[quote author=clay link=topic=6661.msg89389#msg89389 date=1212571788] QT, that is your opinion. It is still unsubstantiated, since the schism is much more complex than the issues you addressed here. Whilst I am reserved to call the EOC as heretics, I am not going to also say that they are completely Orthodox. This requires much more sobriety and effort to come to that conclusion. We have not read all of what happened in those councils. So, keep your opinion to yourself. Calling it a scandal when you don't know all the facts is premature. I share your opinion in a way, but I trust that it is up to God, if He wills, to join us. Our bickering won't do anything for the glory of God- that's for sure.
Clay O clay, O Clay,
The CHurch is the bride of Christ. He is the bridegroom, and we are the bride. You agree. Can the Lord have more than one bride? It seems he does. THIS IS A SCANDAL. You see???
Its awful. Everyone will say "I am the True Bride of Christ". How can they be the bride of Christ, and we are the bride of Christ, and we do not acknowledge them???
Again, it is our OPINION that the EOC has been a faithful bride. It is not fact. We aren't qualified to make that call. To use such strong emotive language can be destructive.
[quote author=clay link=topic=6661.msg89393#msg89393 date=1212574540] Again, it is our OPINION that the EOC has been a faithful bride. It is not fact. We aren't qualified to make that call. To use such strong emotive language can be destructive.
Clay, I'm saying that Christ cannot have TWO brides. That in itself is a scandal. Whether we are the "true" bride or not, is irrelevant. Its a scandal that MORE than 2 Churches exist claiming to be the "True" and "Faithful" Bride of Christ.
There has always been schismatics that have existed that have claimed just that- and by the way- there are thousands of schismatics claiming to be the true church. By your analogy that means that Christ has thousands of brides.
There has always been the gnostics, the arians (which exist today, for instance Isaac Newton), the Nestorians, the Malchians, the list goes on.
Anab Abakir (<-- Awsome Bishop...He is a general Bishop) was asked the question: Will the other "types" of Christianity go to Heaven? He Answered: I know that Coptic Orthodoxy is a way that works, and garenteed to work, if you follow it properly; but there might be other roads that I don't know about and not willing to try... It is like the road to Heaven, and there is more than 1 road, you know that road number 1, witch is Coptic Orthodoxy, will end up taking you to Heaven, but road number 2 (which can be Catholoics, or anything else)... might LAO Tke you to Heaven, I haven't tried road number 2, but i know that the road i am on will take me to Heaven....
To be sure, Christ is the only way to the Father. If the other churches profess Christ, then there is a chance that they will go to the Father.
I remember when the disciples were complaining to Christ that there was a man who was casting out demons with Christ's Name. And Christ said, whoever is not against us is for us.
Since a lot of the theological heavy weights seem to have abandoned Tasbeha could I suggest you have a look at the Oriental Church threads on www.OrthodoxChristianity.net.
There are also some interesting posts from Roman Catholics. Everyone is concerned about Christian unity.
Christ is Risen
Aidan
I didn't feel that this was very appropriate. Just because the old members who were knowledgeable left doesn't mean the new ones aren't. Just something to consider.
[quote author=coptic pharaoh link=topic=6661.msg89434#msg89434 date=1212617561] Anab Abakir (<-- Awsome Bishop...He is a general Bishop) was asked the question: Will the other "types" of Christianity go to Heaven? He Answered: I know that Coptic Orthodoxy is a way that works, and garenteed to work, if you follow it properly; but there might be other roads that I don't know about and not willing to try... It is like the road to Heaven, and there is more than 1 road, you know that road number 1, witch is Coptic Orthodoxy, will end up taking you to Heaven, but road number 2 (which can be Catholoics, or anything else)... might LAO Tke you to Heaven, I haven't tried road number 2, but i know that the road i am on will take me to Heaven....
***This is not word-for-word of what He said, ***
I have heard similar from other priests. No one outside of Christianity will go to heaven. That is fact. But those who are Christian, I'll leave that to God, He didn't specify anything in the Gospels. Just like H.G Anba Apa- Kir said, the priest who was asked said, "I know Coptic Orthodox is one way to go, are the other Christianities possible? Maybe. But that isn't a risk I want to talk on my salvation, I'm going to stick to the sure fire way of Oriental Orthodox."
[quote author=Hisservant link=topic=6661.msg89458#msg89458 date=1212635913] Just like H.G Anba Apa- Kir said, the priest who was asked said, "I know Coptic Orthodox is one way to go, are the other Christianities possible? Maybe. But that isn't a risk I want to talk on my salvation, I'm going to stick to the sure fire way of Oriental Orthodox."
It is spelled H.G. Anba ABAKIR... not Apa-kir..... why did you write it Apa-Kir?? Abakir also means Karas, and Kyrollos.. and Kyrollos means Srevant... just a nice fact...
Forgive me, brethren, for speaking boldly as a Newbie on the site, since what I'm going to say may not sit right with some of you--again, please forgive me.
Someone said a while back that Roman Catholicism has been a great Christian witness in the west: this couldn't be further from the truth. They ADDED doctrines and dogmas to the faith, thus perverting the entirety of the Gospel message. For example, if what they all say is true about Mary (Immaculate Conception, Assumption of the Virgin before her death), then how would it be possible for us to make it to theosis/paradise? Mary is the type for the Church, the model for us as Christians, the first to receive and be received from/by Christ our true God. If she was completely and entirely perfect without any sort of blemish what so ever, God (and St. Paul) would also be a liar: "For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," not "For all, except the Theotokos, have sinned..." Do we see this? That is one example of many (purgatory, indulgences, Mariology, Filioque, etc.). On the flip side, no doubt many of them know the Lord and have a right relationship with Him and likely love Him more than I, but to say Roman Catholicism has been a better Christian witness than the Protestants is terribly off-coloured. Second, Protestants (esp. Lutherans in the Missouri Synod--extremely conservative) were initially reacting to abuses and blasphemous teachings of the Roman Church in the 16th century. Granted, the RC Church has admitted and apologized for many of these abuses, but nonetheless, steps had to be taken. The only Reformation "Father" I think we should have the time of day for is Martin Luther. His 95 Thesis were quite orthodox, since they were geared largely toward the selling of Indulgences. Also, HIS explanation of the Eucharist is as close to Orthodox as you are going to get in the West. The Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation is ill-guided at best and blasphemous at worst, and Luther recognized the reality that we need to maintain the fact that it is a MYSTERY, not something to be theologically torn apart. Luther was also being orthodox when he called the Roman Church back to the Scriptures: we as Orthodox Christians constantly are going back to the Scriptures, but are careful not to fall into Sola Scriptura (I agree, a terrible heresy). We need to understand that Luther did not want to break away from the Church of Rome, but rather sought for the Roman Church to reform, to go back to Christian orthodoxy. As it stands, the only major hinderance between the Coptic and Greek Churches reuniting is the issue of Saints on both sides who were anathematized by each other. The process to work past it is delicate, since we have to go back over doctrines councils that can still be easily misunderstood, as they were back in 451 AD. Like you all cleared up before, the Oriental and Greek understandings of Christ were the same, only in different thought patterns, thus different language in Greek. Both sides affirm that Jesus Christ is 100% Divine and 100% human, and that these natures, being distinct in definition, are inseparable in the ONE person of Jesus Christ. Christ is not divided, and neither of us never at any point in time believed that. Heretics like Sabelius, Arius, and the lot of them did in some form or another (since Christ is God...). And with regards to the other four councils, the Coptic bishops have not disagreed with ANYTHING in the canons laid out in them. Please forgive me, as like you all, my heart breaks because of the division with Orthodox Christianity. But, beloved brethren, be encouraged! There already exists partial communion! Out of necessity, Copts, Ethiopians, and Eretrians (?sp) have the blessing of Eastern Orthodox bishops to receive the Holy Sacraments. For example, in the parish I was Chrismated in (Orthodox Church in America), there were a couple of Coptic Orthodox and many Eretrian Orthodox Christians there who had a blessing to receive the Sacraments because there was no church of their own anywhere close by. The same goes the other way--out of necessity. This goes to show how close we are already are to being reunified. I am greatly encouraged by these things, and I pray that all Orthodox Christians--be they Greek or Oriental--will rejoice in this gentle and slow work of reconciliation between us.
I agree, that their doctrines "are misguided at best, blasphemous at worst". And I think I did allude to the fact that I believe the Lutheran Church is closer to Orthodoxy than Catholicism. But before we woe the Catholic church, they have done more than us to preach to the nations. They comfort the prisoners, they feed the poor, the teach the illiterate, they console the widowers, they defend the murdered infants. That is the Catholicism I see and I admire. I am not ignorant of their beliefs in "transubstantion", but the other doctrines (purgatory, mariology, filioque) have a long tradition in the West. Purgatory, in fact, was preached by our Pope John III to the priest Theodore in the 8th century. Mariology, I am not sure exactly why we accuse them of worshiping Mary? Is it because of her apparently "immaculate conception". Do you know what we say of her, that she was born of her mother at old age! It is not too far of a stretch to conclude the "immaculate conception" once exposed to it, but yes, it is wrong; especially since St. Athanasius already explained the Incarnation and did not have to resort to this heresy. Filioque, is usually thought of us the same as the orthodox belief that the "Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father *through* the Son". They don't see the difference between "And" and "through". If you ask me, it is a bit of semantics. But again, I am no Theologian- so don't take my word for it.
[quote author=clay link=topic=6661.msg89560#msg89560 date=1212717964] I agree, that their doctrines "are misguided at best, blasphemous at worst". And I think I did allude to the fact that I believe the Lutheran Church is closer to Orthodoxy than Catholicism. But before we woe the Catholic church, they have done more than us to preach to the nations. They comfort the prisoners, they feed the poor, the teach the illiterate, they console the widowers, they defend the murdered infants. That is the Catholicism I see and I admire. I am not ignorant of their beliefs in "transubstantion", but the other doctrines (purgatory, mariology, filioque) have a long tradition in the West. Purgatory, in fact, was preached by our Pope John III to the priest Theodore in the 8th century. Mariology, I am not sure exactly why we accuse them of worshiping Mary? Is it because of her apparently "immaculate conception". Do you know what we say of her, that she was born of her mother at old age! It is not too far of a stretch to conclude the "immaculate conception" once exposed to it, but yes, it is wrong; especially since St. Athanasius already explained the Incarnation and did not have to resort to this heresy. Filioque, is usually thought of us the same as the orthodox belief that the "Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father *through* the Son". They don't see the difference between "And" and "through". If you ask me, it is a bit of semantics. But again, I am no Theologian- so don't take my word for it.
Forgive me, my Brother,
You are right, the Romans do things that we Orthodox do not do enough of. When I say Mariology, though, I mean a "study" of "Mary." In Orthodoxy, we don't have a Mariology, only a Christology, and Mary fits into our Christology as a valuable part of God's plan for our salvation. In Roman Catholicism, they separate Mary from Christ, which is why they teach Mary is a Coredemptrix, or a Co-Saviour--which is heresy. When it comes to the Filioque, the Romans do see the difference, which is ever so evident in their prayers. To say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, one turns the Trinity on its side, making the Holy Spirit some kind of extra-special conduit that keeps God together... there was a name for that particular heresy in the early Church... do you remember the name off hand? I seem to have forgotten.
Despite what I have just said, I still may be wrong, and I trust you will let me know if I'm wrong. Thank you for the information and dialogue. May we continue to grow in the great mercies and grace of our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
In the Name of the Father+ and the Son+ and of the Holy Spirit+, the One True God. Amen.
We have alot to pray and study about concerning this very interest topic. I believe it's over semantics (OO's say 2X2=4 AND EO's say 2+2=4) we are saying the same thing. Some people may then ask which semantic is approved by God since it was an Ecumenical Council which expounded 2 natures and one person.
I profoundly pray both our Churches may reconcile and unite since I have a deep, deep love for The Coptic Church. I admire the great piety of her people and simple devotion of her Popes and monastics! i sometimes get more spiritual food from Coptic writings thatn from some Eastern ones. But I see both as coming from the same source. I am happily Antiochian Orthodox and deeply value Chalcedonic teachings but, I am not blind that God speaks through my beloved Copts as well! I love you all!!!
[quote author=Boricua_Orthodox link=topic=6661.msg90899#msg90899 date=1213647998] In the Name of the Father+ and the Son+ and of the Holy Spirit+, the One True God. Amen.
I believe it's over semantics (OO's say 2X2=4 AND EO's say 2+2=4) we are saying the same thing. Some people may then ask which semantic is approved by God since it was an Ecumenical Council which expounded 2 natures and one person.
Yes.. i've been saying that all along. Iqbal seems the most closest to both and Orthodox11 to help us see what is going on. I think its semantics also. To be divided over such a reason seems to be a bit far-fetched. its a HUGE shame. There are also other issues now that have come into the playing field with respect to our differences. It seems to be related to the topic of Theosis. Both Churches are generally in accordance. There's not an issue. We do not become united with the Divine Essence... but rather with the Divine Energies. The Coptic Church has, i believe, in trying to respond to heretical views on this subject have started to use more specific terms that some feel may make us become further. I hope it will not. Im not privy to any Ecumenical information between the EO and OO, but I believe Orthodox11 has more visibility as to what problems can arise with respect to unity should we challenge heretical views by adopting vocabulary that may be seen foreign to the EO to essentially describe the same thing (again, resulting in the 2+2 = 4 and the 2x2 =4 analogy).
Like you Boricua, I love the EO and OO, and I wish us to be One, one day.
I profoundly pray both our Churches may reconcile and unite since I have a deep, deep love for The Coptic Church. I admire the great piety of her people and simple devotion of her Popes and monastics! i sometimes get more spiritual food from Coptic writings thatn from some Eastern ones. But I see both as coming from the same source. I am happily Antiochian Orthodox and deeply value Chalcedonic teachings but, I am not blind that God speaks through my beloved Copts as well! I love you all!!!
Comments
The difference - which many people, including senior hierarchs regard as semantics - is whether it is appropriate to speak of two natures after the union.
That's it?? Whether its "appropriate to speak about the two natures after union"?
We're losing out on good greek food and endless chances to pray in a greek Church in Paris over "if its appropriate to speak"....
Can anyone here claim compensation from the Roman Catholic church for punitive damages inccurred as a result of them causing division between the EO and the OO???
The Orthodox churches were not immune to heresy; we had our fair share of heretical bishops and laity. Some of our Popes taught purgatory (for example Pope John III to priest Theodore). We had some corrupt dealings apparently with the Ethiopian Church; and them vice versa. The Pope before Pope Kyrillos was apparently corrupt, or his secretry was corrupt, allowing people to buy the priesthood!
EOC has had their controversies, such as Iconclastism. We had a brief period in the 19th century, when one of our Popes destroyed many icons because he accused his people of idolatory.
God has called us to holiness; but being men in the flesh, without the spiritual eye (nous), we have fallen woefully fro the mark. Yet, as God dealt with Israel in their faithlessness in the OT, God deals with us, still bringing us together back to orthodoxy- which I pray to God is Orthodoxy!
Also my understanding was that Pope Leo pardoned Eutyches first, and requested Pope Dioscorus to forgive him? Ironic.
How ridiculous was that? So Pope Leo I first decided that Eutyches error by following Docetism was due to "lack of skill" rather than having malicious doctrine, and then later after Eutyches was excommunicated by Flavian of Constantinople, changed his mind, and agreed that Eutyches should be punished, even though Eutyches had already confessed to Pope Dioscoros who was sure of his orthodoxy.
pray for me
joe
It is what Jamaican 'rastas' speak. It is a modified form of English. I would actually consider it a modified vocabulary and not a separate language. Why a man of theology like Orthodox11 would know it is beyond me.
It is what Jamaican 'rastas' speak. It is a modified form of English. I would actually consider it a modified vocabulary and not a separate language. Why a man of theology like Orthodox11 would know it is beyond me.
The Jamaicans dont speak a language called Rasta. Rasta is a movement. But i am not sure what QT meant.While the Official language of Jamaica is english,they have their own dialect which they call 'Patios" , a mixture of broken english and creole (native language)
[quote author=Severus link=topic=6661.msg89349#msg89349 date=1212528910]
It is what Jamaican 'rastas' speak. It is a modified form of English. I would actually consider it a modified vocabulary and not a separate language. Why a man of theology like Orthodox11 would know it is beyond me.
The Jamaicans dont speak a language called Rasta. Rasta is a movement. But i am not sure what QT meant.While the Official language of Jamaica is english,they have their own dialect which they call 'Patios" , a mixture of broken english and creole (native language)
Hence why I referred to it as a modified vocabulary...see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafarian_vocabulary
Dis is da arta-ducks language dat me and my man Arta-ducks11 sp-eek all da time to-geda.
We communi-kate in dis language when we become closer to da Cheurch of Gud.
There's nothing more enjoyable than reading Psalm 1 in the style of a rastafarian.
if it is about jamaicans tell me so i can join you...
Smile Mon...
sorry to ruin your fun, but is this topic about jamicains or about Church Unity????
if it is about jamaicans tell me so i can join you...
Smile Mon...
Its about church unity mon. Yer jem-aye-cun? I'm lur'nin ta tulk jem-aye-cun from artadux11 ye nah...
But i'm only talking like that to make orthodox11 feel at home. To welcome him, to show him that he's not alone.
But yes, you are right, this is talking about Church Unity.
To get back on track, the idea now is that we are divided OVER NOTHING.
Prove me wrong. At the end of the day, its NADA our differences.
[quote author=coptic pharaoh link=topic=6661.msg89377#msg89377 date=1212547593]
sorry to ruin your fun, but is this topic about jamicains or about Church Unity????
if it is about jamaicans tell me so i can join you...
Smile Mon...
Its about church unity mon. Yer jem-aye-cun? I'm lur'nin ta tulk jem-aye-cun from artadux11 ye nah...
But i'm only talking like that to make orthodox11 feel at home. To welcome him, to show him that he's not alone.
But yes, you are right, this is talking about Church Unity.
To get back on track, the idea now is that we are divided OVER NOTHING.
Prove me wrong. At the end of the day, its NADA our differences.
Even if we divided over something trivia, and that is debatable, there is still the other 4 'Ecunemical' Councils that we did not attend. Perhaps, Orthodoxy was no preserved in these Councils- and this is in the domain of our Theologians and theirs- not us. Let us not get ahead of ourselves.
Look, the more I see the news, and listen to what's going on, the more I see people coming back to Orthodoxy. A LOT are returning back to Orthodoxy. Anything Orthodox.
Whilst we are bickering about semantics, when we both agree on Christological issues to a fine detail, then we should not be divided. Its a disgrace. How is it the Orthodox Church can be divided?? This is odd!!! The catholics can be divided.. that's normal, and of course the baptists and protestants can be divided.. but not us. Its a scandal.
If the Orthodox Church is divided, then do u think that will encourage others to become Orthodox?? No.. they'll think we are just the same as the catholics and protestants.
QT, that is your opinion. It is still unsubstantiated, since the schism is much more complex than the issues you addressed here. Whilst I am reserved to call the EOC as heretics, I am not going to also say that they are completely Orthodox. This requires much more sobriety and effort to come to that conclusion. We have not read all of what happened in those councils. So, keep your opinion to yourself. Calling it a scandal when you don't know all the facts is premature. I share your opinion in a way, but I trust that it is up to God, if He wills, to join us. Our bickering won't do anything for the glory of God- that's for sure.
Clay O clay, O Clay,
The CHurch is the bride of Christ. He is the bridegroom, and we are the bride. You agree.
Can the Lord have more than one bride? It seems he does. THIS IS A SCANDAL. You see???
Its awful. Everyone will say "I am the True Bride of Christ". How can they be the bride of Christ, and we are the bride of Christ, and we do not acknowledge them???
Its a scandal..
Do u get what i mean now?
Again, it is our OPINION that the EOC has been a faithful bride. It is not fact. We aren't qualified to make that call. To use such strong emotive language can be destructive.
Clay, I'm saying that Christ cannot have TWO brides. That in itself is a scandal. Whether we are the "true" bride or not, is irrelevant. Its a scandal that MORE than 2 Churches exist claiming to be the "True" and "Faithful" Bride of Christ.
There has always been the gnostics, the arians (which exist today, for instance Isaac Newton), the Nestorians, the Malchians, the list goes on.
He Answered: I know that Coptic Orthodoxy is a way that works, and garenteed to work, if you follow it properly; but there might be other roads that I don't know about and not willing to try... It is like the road to Heaven, and there is more than 1 road, you know that road number 1, witch is Coptic Orthodoxy, will end up taking you to Heaven, but road number 2 (which can be Catholoics, or anything else)... might LAO Tke you to Heaven, I haven't tried road number 2, but i know that the road i am on will take me to Heaven....
***This is not word-for-word of what He said, ***
I remember when the disciples were complaining to Christ that there was a man who was casting out demons with Christ's Name. And Christ said, whoever is not against us is for us.
Hello
Since a lot of the theological heavy weights seem to have abandoned Tasbeha could I suggest you have a look at the Oriental Church threads on www.OrthodoxChristianity.net.
There are also some interesting posts from Roman Catholics. Everyone is concerned about Christian unity.
Christ is Risen
Aidan
I didn't feel that this was very appropriate. Just because the old members who were knowledgeable left doesn't mean the new ones aren't. Just something to consider.
Anab Abakir (<-- Awsome Bishop...He is a general Bishop) was asked the question: Will the other "types" of Christianity go to Heaven?
He Answered: I know that Coptic Orthodoxy is a way that works, and garenteed to work, if you follow it properly; but there might be other roads that I don't know about and not willing to try... It is like the road to Heaven, and there is more than 1 road, you know that road number 1, witch is Coptic Orthodoxy, will end up taking you to Heaven, but road number 2 (which can be Catholoics, or anything else)... might LAO Tke you to Heaven, I haven't tried road number 2, but i know that the road i am on will take me to Heaven....
***This is not word-for-word of what He said, ***
I have heard similar from other priests. No one outside of Christianity will go to heaven. That is fact. But those who are Christian, I'll leave that to God, He didn't specify anything in the Gospels. Just like H.G Anba Apa- Kir said, the priest who was asked said, "I know Coptic Orthodox is one way to go, are the other Christianities possible? Maybe. But that isn't a risk I want to talk on my salvation, I'm going to stick to the sure fire way of Oriental Orthodox."
pray for me
joe
Just like H.G Anba Apa- Kir said, the priest who was asked said, "I know Coptic Orthodox is one way to go, are the other Christianities possible? Maybe. But that isn't a risk I want to talk on my salvation, I'm going to stick to the sure fire way of Oriental Orthodox."
It is spelled H.G. Anba ABAKIR... not Apa-kir..... why did you write it Apa-Kir??
Abakir also means Karas, and Kyrollos.. and Kyrollos means Srevant... just a nice fact...
Forgive me, brethren, for speaking boldly as a Newbie on the site, since what I'm going to say may not sit right with some of you--again, please forgive me.
Someone said a while back that Roman Catholicism has been a great Christian witness in the west: this couldn't be further from the truth. They ADDED doctrines and dogmas to the faith, thus perverting the entirety of the Gospel message. For example, if what they all say is true about Mary (Immaculate Conception, Assumption of the Virgin before her death), then how would it be possible for us to make it to theosis/paradise? Mary is the type for the Church, the model for us as Christians, the first to receive and be received from/by Christ our true God. If she was completely and entirely perfect without any sort of blemish what so ever, God (and St. Paul) would also be a liar: "For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," not "For all, except the Theotokos, have sinned..." Do we see this? That is one example of many (purgatory, indulgences, Mariology, Filioque, etc.). On the flip side, no doubt many of them know the Lord and have a right relationship with Him and likely love Him more than I, but to say Roman Catholicism has been a better Christian witness than the Protestants is terribly off-coloured.
Second, Protestants (esp. Lutherans in the Missouri Synod--extremely conservative) were initially reacting to abuses and blasphemous teachings of the Roman Church in the 16th century. Granted, the RC Church has admitted and apologized for many of these abuses, but nonetheless, steps had to be taken. The only Reformation "Father" I think we should have the time of day for is Martin Luther. His 95 Thesis were quite orthodox, since they were geared largely toward the selling of Indulgences. Also, HIS explanation of the Eucharist is as close to Orthodox as you are going to get in the West. The Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation is ill-guided at best and blasphemous at worst, and Luther recognized the reality that we need to maintain the fact that it is a MYSTERY, not something to be theologically torn apart. Luther was also being orthodox when he called the Roman Church back to the Scriptures: we as Orthodox Christians constantly are going back to the Scriptures, but are careful not to fall into Sola Scriptura (I agree, a terrible heresy). We need to understand that Luther did not want to break away from the Church of Rome, but rather sought for the Roman Church to reform, to go back to Christian orthodoxy.
As it stands, the only major hinderance between the Coptic and Greek Churches reuniting is the issue of Saints on both sides who were anathematized by each other. The process to work past it is delicate, since we have to go back over doctrines councils that can still be easily misunderstood, as they were back in 451 AD. Like you all cleared up before, the Oriental and Greek understandings of Christ were the same, only in different thought patterns, thus different language in Greek. Both sides affirm that Jesus Christ is 100% Divine and 100% human, and that these natures, being distinct in definition, are inseparable in the ONE person of Jesus Christ. Christ is not divided, and neither of us never at any point in time believed that. Heretics like Sabelius, Arius, and the lot of them did in some form or another (since Christ is God...). And with regards to the other four councils, the Coptic bishops have not disagreed with ANYTHING in the canons laid out in them.
Please forgive me, as like you all, my heart breaks because of the division with Orthodox Christianity. But, beloved brethren, be encouraged! There already exists partial communion! Out of necessity, Copts, Ethiopians, and Eretrians (?sp) have the blessing of Eastern Orthodox bishops to receive the Holy Sacraments. For example, in the parish I was Chrismated in (Orthodox Church in America), there were a couple of Coptic Orthodox and many Eretrian Orthodox Christians there who had a blessing to receive the Sacraments because there was no church of their own anywhere close by. The same goes the other way--out of necessity. This goes to show how close we are already are to being reunified. I am greatly encouraged by these things, and I pray that all Orthodox Christians--be they Greek or Oriental--will rejoice in this gentle and slow work of reconciliation between us.
Forgive me, my brethren.
joseph +
I agree, that their doctrines "are misguided at best, blasphemous at worst". And I think I did allude to the fact that I believe the Lutheran Church is closer to Orthodoxy than Catholicism. But before we woe the Catholic church, they have done more than us to preach to the nations. They comfort the prisoners, they feed the poor, the teach the illiterate, they console the widowers, they defend the murdered infants. That is the Catholicism I see and I admire. I am not ignorant of their beliefs in "transubstantion", but the other doctrines (purgatory, mariology, filioque) have a long tradition in the West. Purgatory, in fact, was preached by our Pope John III to the priest Theodore in the 8th century. Mariology, I am not sure exactly why we accuse them of worshiping Mary? Is it because of her apparently "immaculate conception". Do you know what we say of her, that she was born of her mother at old age! It is not too far of a stretch to conclude the "immaculate conception" once exposed to it, but yes, it is wrong; especially since St. Athanasius already explained the Incarnation and did not have to resort to this heresy. Filioque, is usually thought of us the same as the orthodox belief that the "Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father *through* the Son". They don't see the difference between "And" and "through". If you ask me, it is a bit of semantics. But again, I am no Theologian- so don't take my word for it.
Forgive me, my Brother,
You are right, the Romans do things that we Orthodox do not do enough of. When I say Mariology, though, I mean a "study" of "Mary." In Orthodoxy, we don't have a Mariology, only a Christology, and Mary fits into our Christology as a valuable part of God's plan for our salvation. In Roman Catholicism, they separate Mary from Christ, which is why they teach Mary is a Coredemptrix, or a Co-Saviour--which is heresy. When it comes to the Filioque, the Romans do see the difference, which is ever so evident in their prayers. To say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, one turns the Trinity on its side, making the Holy Spirit some kind of extra-special conduit that keeps God together... there was a name for that particular heresy in the early Church... do you remember the name off hand? I seem to have forgotten.
Despite what I have just said, I still may be wrong, and I trust you will let me know if I'm wrong. Thank you for the information and dialogue. May we continue to grow in the great mercies and grace of our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Pray for me, my brethren.
We have alot to pray and study about concerning this very interest topic. I believe it's over semantics (OO's say 2X2=4 AND EO's say 2+2=4) we are saying the same thing. Some people may then ask which semantic is approved by God since it was an Ecumenical Council which expounded 2 natures and one person.
I profoundly pray both our Churches may reconcile and unite since I have a deep, deep love for The Coptic Church. I admire the great piety of her people and simple devotion of her Popes and monastics! i sometimes get more spiritual food from Coptic writings thatn from some Eastern ones. But I see both as coming from the same source. I am happily Antiochian Orthodox and deeply value Chalcedonic teachings but, I am not blind that God speaks through my beloved Copts as well! I love you all!!!
In the Name of the Father+ and the Son+ and of the Holy Spirit+, the One True God. Amen.
I believe it's over semantics (OO's say 2X2=4 AND EO's say 2+2=4) we are saying the same thing. Some people may then ask which semantic is approved by God since it was an Ecumenical Council which expounded 2 natures and one person.
Yes.. i've been saying that all along. Iqbal seems the most closest to both and Orthodox11 to help us see what is going on. I think its semantics also. To be divided over such a reason seems to be a bit far-fetched. its a HUGE shame. There are also other issues now that have come into the playing field with respect to our differences. It seems to be related to the topic of Theosis. Both Churches are generally in accordance. There's not an issue. We do not become united with the Divine Essence... but rather with the Divine Energies. The Coptic Church has, i believe, in trying to respond to heretical views on this subject have started to use more specific terms that some feel may make us become further. I hope it will not. Im not privy to any Ecumenical information between the EO and OO, but I believe Orthodox11 has more visibility as to what problems can arise with respect to unity should we challenge heretical views by adopting vocabulary that may be seen foreign to the EO to essentially describe the same thing (again, resulting in the 2+2 = 4 and the 2x2 =4 analogy).
Like you Boricua, I love the EO and OO, and I wish us to be One, one day. Yeah me too. Hence why i came up with the thread.