[quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=8994.msg112297#msg112297 date=1269381506] [quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112289#msg112289 date=1269380322] Nobody realizes that St Pope Kyrillos was vehemently opposed to ecumenism. I would expect Fr Peter to know this, being that he is well read, either that or just ignorant of the past. FACT Fr Peter you are wrong and are clearly ignorant of Coptic history and this is why I am so direct with you, you have said many things that contradict the early church fathers, I cannot stand aside while you spout liberal non sense.
I am not sure what 'liberal nonsense' you are referring to? I have just spent an hour or so researching the references I provided above from His Holiness Pope Shenouda, H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy, our Holy Synod, Patriarchs Karekin, Aram, Zakka Iwas and many others. Indeed I refrained from doing anything much than posting what these Fathers have written. So if what I have written is liberal nonsense then I do not see how you can avoid accusing all of these Fathers of teaching liberal nonsense?
Fr Peter you are relying on our bishops of today without realizing that many are in conflict with the eArly church fathers, which clearly shows you a not very well read. And these silly statements that no other Copt would say these things is silly, I know many that understand the evils of ecumenism or as you say "dialogue". Again you fail to make any case In defense of your argument. Pope Kyrillos was against ecumenism and many if not all of the early church fathers witness on my behalf.
I personally do not believe in infallibility as you clearly do, and many Copts on this website. You need to study the early church fathers as you are lacking in that area, I think you will be suprised when you see how wrong you are.
It would be a help to know if you are Coptic Orthodox, Ioannes? or belong to one of the sister Churches. I do find it hard to believe that a member of the Coptic Orthodox Church would read all of these statements made by our bishops and patriarchs and then accuse me of 'spouting liberal nonsense'.
[quote author=jydeacon link=topic=8994.msg112325#msg112325 date=1269402631] Ioaness you haven't posted anything?
Yes, for some reason it didnt post what I typed. I was typing from my Iphone, which I am terrible at so maybe that is why. Basically I have continually tried to point out to Fr. Peter that while he is relying on some of our current bishops and the popes opinion, I am relying on our church fathers and what they have to say on ecumenism, although Fr Peter continually uses the word "dialogue" as if that is supposed to make a difference. A dialogue for what? UNITY! I have also pointed out that one of the greatest modern saints in our church St Pope Kyrillos was vehemently against ecumenism, yet our current Pope is the complete opposite. So both cannot be correct, so either one you choose, then your saying the other is wrong. I go with Pope Kyrillos, for reasons we should not discuss in this forum.
Time and time again I have given to Fr Peter witnesses that speak on my behalf, St John Chrysostom, St Cyprian of Carthage, St Paul, and Christ Himself. All Fr Peter has been able to muster is the phrase "I agree with certain bishops, and the Pope" as if the pope is somehow infallible. This is not an attack on anyone, as some people percieve. It goes to show that the doctrine of papal infallibility is practiced in our church, even though the church does not believe in that doctrine.
Fr Peter, God bless him, cannot let go of the idea that there is absolute truth. He told me that protestantism is a "half truth" or that they dont have the full truth. How can you have a partial truth? Rev 3:16 Christ tells us that he will vomit out the lukewarm, neither hot nor cold. Meaning you are either one or the other, this clearly showing that absolute does exist. Also Luke 11:23 "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth." The body of Christ on earth is His church. That church is the Orthodox Church, so if your not with the church your against Christ.
I know there is no convincing Fr Peter or many on this site in fact. The problem is, the evidence is stacked against you on the issue of ecumenism. You stand in opposition to the saints, to our beloved St Pope Kyrillos. Fr Peter will just continue to hide behind the Pope and offer no real substance to his argument.
By the way Fr Peter, you have clearly shown your bias towards me. Any topic I have posted that didnt directly deal with lent you told me to be quiet, and yet I see several topics on a variety of non lent and borderline offensive subjects.
P.S. I am Coptic. I belong to St George Coptic Orthodox Church in Toledo, Ohio. I work closely with many Ethiopian Orthodox, most if not all are staunchly opposed to ecumenism. I help many of them deal with the disease of protestantism that has infected their nation. I have previously extended the offer to you, which got me into trouble with another site moderator, but if you would like to discuss this matter in another forum I would be happy to. I supplied you with my phone number if you feel that would be better, or perhaps you can call my Abouna?
Fr Peter, God bless him, cannot let go of the idea that there is absolute truth. He told me that protestantism is a "half truth" or that they dont have the full truth. How can you have a partial truth? Rev 3:16 Christ tells us that he will vomit out the lukewarm, neither hot nor cold. Meaning you are either one or the other, this clearly showing that absolute does exist. Also Luke 11:23 "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth." The body of Christ on earth is His church. That church is the Orthodox Church, so if your not with the church your against Christ.
I think this is so clear Ioannes. You're mixing up 2 different things here.
When Christ tells us to be either cold or hot , he means in our relationship with Him. Either we love him and we try to strive to be closer and sin less and be more Holy in all that we do, or we just admit that we don't want him, and live away from him. But not both. We don't go off and pretend we love him and do the exact opposite.
That has nothing to do with Protestants or Catholics: they will read that same verse the same way I've just understood it.
Having partial truth means they are not Orthodox, they are lacking, but they DO have some truth. That's just basic common sense. Do you agree that, for example, Protestants believe in the Holy Trinity, Christ died for them, and Christ loves them? These are truths. They have a partial view of the full picture. It doesn't mean that what they've seen is incorrect, but rather its incomplete.
I certainly don't believe in the infallibility of Popes or bishops. I am not sure why you keep saying that I do? Is there anything from any of my written papers which are all on the internet which would allow you to conclude such a thing?
Nevertheless we are members of an hierarchical Church, and the Pope and our bishops are the shepherds of our Christian community. It is a very serious matter to disagree with our Pope and the Holy Synod. It seems to me that it is very easy to have a personal opinion, and convince ourselves that we alone read the Fathers correctly. But our Orthodox Faith is not at heart a matter of intellectual study where we can gain a better knowledge than a priest or bishop and therefore think that we are more Orthodox. I have myself also wrestled with this same intellectual temptation, but it is a form of pride.
The bishops receive a special grace at their consecration, and I have discovered since my ordination as a priest that truly the grace of the priesthood is not simply a matter of management structures but represents a true charism - which can be ignored or denied since priests and bishops are also people - but which is more usually being integrated before us into the life of the priest or bishop, who struggles as we all do, and yet must struggle in front of everyone else.
What this means, as I understand it in my own life, is that we must seek to obediently and sympathetically understand what our bishops and Pope and patriarchs are saying on the one hand, while having a knowledge of the Fathers on the other hand. And we must seek to come to a balanced understanding of these two sources. If we rely on our own reading of the Fathers then we are actually just relying on our own knowledge - which is often pride.
There are issues I have had with some expressions of the Holy Synod's view on things, but I have come to understand that by integrating their response to various issues with my own understanding I come to a much fuller and rounded view of things than by judging the Synod by the measure of my own reading of the Fathers. On some other matters I have assumed that my reading and knowledge of the Fathers was correct and that others were wrong, but I have also learned that in fact they were correct and I needed to modify my own views.
Perhaps this is something you need to consider? That the bishops and Pope are not wrong, but that they are offering a different perspective and a different understanding of a much wider range of Fathers than the two you keep mentioning, which is appropriate for times and circumstances in which we find ourselves.
As to absolute and partial truth. Well I am surprised that you seem to unable to understand what I mean, but I am clearly at fault for not explaining very well. Our Orthodox Faith is not a matter of gaining theological knowledge and passing exams. We are all of us in error on some point of faith and none of us would get 100% in an exam. But in any case, as I tell my catechumens, Orthodoxy is not a matter of knowledge of propositions ABOUT God it is a growing knowledge OF God. Clearly there are members of this forum who are in error on various things, that does not make them heretics and non-Orthodox. It makes them Orthodox who are confused and in error on some issues.
It is also clear that as Pope Shenouda and our bishops insist, there are many issues on which the Roman Catholic Church and the Byzantine Church is entirely in agreement with our Orthodox Faith. Therefore on these issues what they teach is true. Yet there are other issues where what they teach is not clearly Orthodox. Therefore they are partially true in what they believe. I am not sure why is this hard to understand? What you are proposing - that everyone must be 100% correct and accurate in everything they believe or they are not Orthodox - would mean that a large proportion of Orthodox faithful who receive communion each week and are committed to Christ would be cast out of the Church because there was one thing or another in which they were in error. Indeed are you so very certain that everything you believe is 100% correct? If not then you also would be cast out.
I am not sure that there would be many people left in the Church if everyone was excluded who did not believe only that which was 100% correct. Indeed you have said that the Pope and many of our Coptic Orthodox bishops and myself are wrong - therefore you seem to me to be clearly proposing that we be cast out.
You say..
Fr Peter, God bless him, cannot let go of the idea that there is absolute truth. He told me that protestantism is a "half truth" or that they dont have the full truth. How can you have a partial truth? Rev 3:16 Christ tells us that he will vomit out the lukewarm, neither hot nor cold.
Is this addressed to me? to our bishops and Pope? or to Protestants, Catholics and Byzantines? How can it apply to them if they are not part of the Church? The letters in Rev 3 are addressed to the Churches not to those who are not Churches. Does it apply to those Coptic Orthodox who are not clear in their faith and have mixed error with truth? Surely a Copt who believes in purgatory has mixed truth with error, does this mean they cease to be Orthodox?
It would be helpful if you could please show where Pope Kyrillos was vehemently against ecumenism. It is clear, as you say, that Pope Shenouda and our Synod are not against dialogue with the Catholics, the Byzantines and others. I am not sure why you object to the word 'dialogue', it means a two way conversation, and it is the word which our Pope and bishops choose to use.
Zoxasi, yes it does refer to protestants, as well as any Orthodox not practicing the Orthodox spiritual life. If, as if Fr Peter said, protestants are indeed Christian but do not have the full revelation of the truth, then they are lukewarm.
Fr Peter I dont know how you do not understand why dialogue and unity are virtually the same. What is the point of dialogue that has no common goal? Its clear this word is used to mask the goal of unity, why else would we have dialogue? To understand one another? Then get a book. In this verse in Revelation it does pertain to the churches, notice all those churches no longer exist, the specific ones Christ mentions. It is a symbol, because heretics are now being considered "Christian" this is why Christ uses the word "vomit", because these people, especially including the lazy or lapsi Orthodox, were more of a sickness in the body of Christ.
You do realize that you have contradicted yourself. First you say that you do not believe in infallibility and are confused as to why I accuse you of that. I am not just accusing you but several people on this site as well. But you act as if bishops and even the pope cannot be questioned. You say that when you were consecrated that you received a "special grace". We all receive the Holy Spirit after baptism, is that not special? I believe this is one of the things Matta El Maskeen and Pope Shenouda disagreed on. Yes the Priests and Bishops have much more responsibility and judgment is much more harsh for them, but that does not mean they cannot be wrong. This does not mean that BECAUSE I am not a priest nor bishop I cannot be right.
Fr Peter I am not interpreting the early church fathers in a way that suits me. I would love for all to be Orthodox....but not at the expense of the church. I will indeed find you the sources for St Pope Kyrillos. The Russian patriarch had invited him to Russia for "dialogue" and St Pope Kyrillos politely responded that he could not because "we do not confess the same Faith" (this was years before the signing of the Joint Agreements between the OOs and the EOs). While I have all the respect in the world for Eastern Orthodox, I reject unity with them for many reasons.
Fr Peter I feel as if I am repeating myself every discussion we enter in to. You assert that I am misinterpreting the fathers, God forbid, then show me my error that I may correct it. As I said before you continually refer to a few current bishops and our pope without referring at all to the early church. I am not sure what else to say as I just keep reiterating the same thing.
I really think it is dangerous to read the Bible when you have your own personal agenda directing you. You'll interpret everything from the Bible to appease your own frustrations.
Its good to see that you are Orthodox and so attached to the faith, but extremism is never good. You are literally verging on fanatism, and I have no part with your opinion, nor people who think like you.
If I'm sad, I read the Bible to make me happy. If I'm hurt, I read the Bible to make me better. If I'm lacking wisdom, I read the Bible to make me wiser.
If I hate Protestants and Catholics, I read the Bible to make me hate them more. That's just wrong.
You say that when you were consecrated that you received a "special grace". We all receive the Holy Spirit after baptism, is that not special?
It is not clear to me what you mean. Are you suggesting that ordination to the priesthood is not a sacrament and does not convey the special grace of the priesthood? It would not at all be Orthodox to deny such a special grace.
Take it easy man. I understand you are very zealous but like Zoxsasi said, extremism isn't the answer. Nobody here is saying the pope is infallible. We know he can make a mistake. However, its quite bold of you to disagree with someone who has been orthodox their whole lives and is a PONTIFF, while you have been orthodox for a few years. All need guidance when it comes to reading from the fathers and even from the Bible. If you read the bible according to your own understanding then that is in fact not orthodox. That is exactly what protestants believe. They have their own understanding and what makes a priest or bishop or pope right about what they are saying. I don't want to get into a theological debate here but obviously the GRACE(notice I say grace not Holy Spirit) we receive in baptism is not the same grace received for priesthood. If it were, then what is stopping you from conducting all services on your own, or say starting your own church. I'm not different than a priest so what the heck?
As for what you say about Pope kyrillos(who is not canonically a saint, even though I and everyone love him), don't you think its a double standard to say this pope is wrong and this pope is right. Both are right, at the time there had been no dialogue between these churches for hundreds of years, so both believed they were heretics. So what he did at the time was right. But now we have come to realize that they are not in fact heretics and that we do have the same exact faith. So what HH did now is right.
Why would you disagree with communion with the EO?
You say that when you were consecrated that you received a "special grace". We all receive the Holy Spirit after baptism, is that not special?
It is not clear to me what you mean. Are you suggesting that ordination to the priesthood is not a sacrament and does not convey the special grace of the priesthood? It would not at all be Orthodox to deny such a special grace.
You made it seem as if nobody outside the priesthood receives the Holy Spirit, so does that mean that you deny a sacrament. Is this how you choose to justify your ignorance? By trying to make me out to be a heretic? Everyone receives a special grace when they receive the Holy Spirit, this does not demean any sacrament, Fr Peter that is a very foolish argument. Why would you put such words into my mouth? While I respect the priesthood greatly, this is a clear example of why I have a hard time respecting you.
You time and time again divert from the topic at hand and then put words into my mouth, for what reason?I have presented evidence that you have failed to make a valid argument against, other than just saying you side with the pope, as if his word is some sort of infallible authority. Against all evidence you disagree. I also have a suprise for you, my good friend is bringing to me a recording done by Abouna Raphael of St Minas Monastery in Egypt, so you can hear for yourself about St Pope Kyrillos' stance on ecumenism.
Jy, this is the exact point I was trying to make. Pope Kyrillos was against it, and Pope Shenouda isnt. I never said either were infallible. If, God forbid, I am misinterpreting the scriptures or the early church fathers then please point it out to me, as I have asked Fr Peter several times to do, since quite clearly I am wrong in his eyes.Yet, Fr Peter has not been able to do this. I am weak and I dont claim to know all things I am not speaking on my behalf but with witnesses to this argument, if you would like me to present them again I will.
Mt 24:24 clearly states that "if it were possible, even the elect might be deceived". So if it is possible for someone to be deceived, then in all likelyhood it could happen. The necessity for ecumenism is not for us nor God, but for the antichrist. There needs to be unity in all aspects, social, political, economic, and religious. It only makes sense. I have quoted the WCC website which details their goal for one church based on our common beliefs. Fr Peter has asserted that I should be for dialogue if I am Christian. This is absurd! He also asserts that the WCC is just dialogue, well if so then what is the goal of dialogue? When I have dialogue with those of other religions, the goal is to bring them to the truth, so in that sense I believe in dialogue. Not Fr. Peters perverted sense of "dialogue" which is another way to say unity.
Where did I ever suggest that in baptism and chrismation the new believer does not receive the Holy Spirit. Never, because of course it is not true.
But you have still not indicated that you do believe that priests and bishops receive a special grace. You have only repeated that 'everyone receives a special grace'.
This is not what our Orthodox Faith teaches us.
Can you indicate that you do believe that priests and bishops receive a special grace which is not given to all baptised Orthodox?
On the point you make about Pope Kyrillos having a different view in regard to the the Russian Orthodox Church while he was Pope, I think that jydeacon has already responded to you and indicated that your are making the error of taking the opinion which is given in one situation and context and trying to apply it in all situations and contexts. The role of our bishops, as the living shepherds of the living Church, is to respond to the situations in which the Church finds itself and not simply apply judgements in a legalistic manner to situations which are different.
1700 years ago there was a great need to preserve the Church against those who were separating from her. This situation is found today with Max Michael and with some Western groups which are engaged in proselytism in Orthodox countries. There is a need to be strict and even harsh with such groups. But today Orthodoxy has an important role in drawing back together those Christians who have been separated for too long - and who continue to be separated through no wilful desire for schism. Our holy Fathers the bishops, the Pope, and the other Patriarchs of our Church, are engaged in this ministry of drawing separated Christians back together again. It is a godly and spiritual ministry and I make no apology for wholeheartedly supporting our fathers.
Let me very briefly mention the two fathers you keep raising. St John Chrysostom in his homilies against the Jews was dealing with members of another religion. He was also seeking to counter the attractions of a successful Jewish community among some of the weaker Christians in his community. So he spoke harshly. But a Roman Catholic is not a member of another religion, he is a Christian, and it is our responsibility to witness to our Orthodox Faith with generosity.
The othr Father, St Cyprian of Carthage, had a point of view which has never been universally accepted by Orthodox through the years. The view of our Fathers is made very clear by St Severus and St Timothy, and by the constant practice of the Coptic Orthodox Church into modern times. This view is that in the case of Byzantine Christians who are not members of the Orthodox Church, if they wish to join our communion then they should not be baptised or chrismated, and if they are priests or bishops they should be recieved as priests and bishops. Yet the same Fathers consider the Byzantine Church to be in error. But clearly not so much in error that it cannot have true sacraments and grace.
It is based on the teaching of St Severus and St Timothy, and St Dioscorus before that, that our own Pope Shenouda and his brother bishops, and all the bishops of the Oriental Orthodox communion have agreed that the Byzantine Church is Orthodox, even though it has been separated from our Orthodox communion for 1500 years. If St Severus, perhaps the greatest of theologians, certainly the equal of St Cyril and St Athanasius, considered that the Byzantines were still Christian even though in error, then I will never disagree with him. It is quite clear that our Church has never accepted the view of St Cyprian of Carthage as being universally applicable. Neither has any Orthodox Church.
Therefore your two Fathers, though they are undoubtedly Orthodox Fathers, do not support your negative view of every person who is not a member of our Church. One was speaking to a particular situation that we do not find ourselves generally in, and the other voiced an opinion that was not accepted by the Church at large. It is the role of our present bishops to gather together all of the teachings of the Fathers and interpret them into our present situations. It is as much a mistake to excerpt passages from 2 fathers and try and apply them everywhere, as it is to excerpt two passages from Scripture and apply them in a different context. We must take the whole of the teaching of the Fathers, as understood across the whole sweep of the history of the Church, and apply that teaching sensitively and not legalistically.
An example, one ruling from the ancient times states that Christians should not use a Jewish hairdresser upon pain of excommunication. Should this just be applied forever, in all places and circumstances, or were our fathers addressing a particular situation? Clearly they were addressing a particular situation and if a modern bishop said that there was not a problem in having a Jewish hairdresser he would not be teaching heresy, he would be doing his ministry, which is applying the teachings of the Church to the present situation.
You know Fr Peter you continually try and make me look foolish by twisting my words all around, I expect more from a priest. I take pope kyrillos side for many reasons, it is best not to discuss why pope shenouda is wrong in this setting.
It is not our job to go seek unity, I am glad u finally admit that the ultimate goal is unity. You are foolish in that you ignore the stated goal of the wcc and instead say, it's just dialogue. You are foolish because you refuse to see the truth, that this liberalization is destroying our congregation. No one comes to Christ unless the Father wills it, so why are we forcing it?
You and many others are leaving the foundation of our church behind in favor of "unity". You are foolish in that you cannot see how relative this is making our church. You are a cool for not watching as Christ commanded and are partaking in a heresy that will ultimately destroy our church. You Fr Peter are a fool,and anyone else that ignores fact in favor of someones opinion because of their rank is foolish too.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112350#msg112350 date=1269468395] You know Fr Peter you continually try and make me look foolish by twisting my words all around, I expect more from a priest. I take pope kyrillos side for many reasons, it is best not to discuss why pope shenouda is wrong in this setting.
It is not our job to go seek unity, I am glad u finally admit that the ultimate goal is unity. You are foolish in that you ignore the stated goal of the wcc and instead say, it's just dialogue. You are foolish because you refuse to see the truth, that this liberalization is destroying our congregation. No one comes to Christ unless the Father wills it, so why are we forcing it?
You and many others are leaving the foundation of our church behind in favor of "unity". You are foolish in that you cannot see how relative this is making our church. You are a cool for not watching as Christ commanded and are partaking in a heresy that will ultimately destroy our church. You Fr Peter are a fool,and anyone else that ignores fact in favor of someones opinion because of their rank is foolish too.
Ioannes,
I understand your zeal but the tone you take with Fr. Peter is not acceptable at all. Would you ever dare to speak to your real father like that, let alone a spiritual father the way you speak to Fr. Peter? If so may God forgive you. "...And whoever says to his brother Raca! will be in danger of the council. But whoever says, You fool! shall be in danger of hell fire." You need to take your tone down man and show some respect.
please forgive me if I am speaking when I should have stayed silent. I can understand why each of you is so passionate about what you are saying. Both of you love the Holy Church very much. Ioannes I can see that you love the Church Fathers and are trying to protect the church. You do not wish for her teachings to be lost or diluted or compromised. This is good. Father Peter also loves the Church and loves our Holy Fathers. He also does not want the richness and truth of Orthodoxy to be lost. As I understand it he believes that dialogue with other Christian Churches is not something to fear. We as Orthodox Christians would not forget or dilute the Truth that we have preserved, cherished, loved, lived and who so many have died for. However, dialogue with other churches may help us to grow in humility, love and respect. It also may reveal to others some of the beauty of Orthodox Christianity. Our church is a wonderful light, we shud not hide it under a basket. In this time where other Christians are willing to listen and not argue, is it not a chance to share what we know about Christ. If we are humble and faithful and speak with love then maybe they will listen. Likewise we too, may be able to learn from them. If dialogue does not achieve anything theologically, perhaps at least we will learn to love and respect others more. It may bring peace between different peoples. It is ok to agree to disagree, and this may be the outcome of these dialogues, i guess time will tell. Do not fear, Christ promised that the gates of hades would not prevail against His Church. If our fathers are prayerful Christ will be the with them in their dialogue and if He does not want unity to happen it won't. In the mean time, as I see it we must be careful to speak with each other gently and with love, even when we strongly strongly disagree with each other. In John 13 after Jesus washed the feet of His disciples and speaks about how Judas will betray Him He says.. "Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35). So even though we might disagree with each other let everything we do be done in love as Christ asked us. Otherwise, like it says in 1 Corinthians 13 we are nothing and the good we do profits us nothing. People will not see the truth of Orthodox Christianity if they do not see Christ's love in us for one another and for them.
sorry this is a little long+sorry if i have just said stuff you knew already. May God's grace and love be with you! =)
PS here are some nice quotations i'd like to share about the Church..
"When the world asks, "What is God like?" we should be able to say, "Look at the church." As the Body of Christ, we are to be like Jesus so that we too reveal God to the world." William R. L. Haley
"Thou didst establish on earth the holy Church in the image of the heavenly kingdom: Thou didst build her with love, establish her with compassion and Thou didst spiritually betroth Thyself to her, and gain her by Thy suffering.But the hater of manking in his shameless impudence, attacks her in the person of her servers. O Lord, do not leave Thy holy Church without Thy care, that the promise which Thou didst utter concerning her invincibility may not be shown false. Do not let her majestic beauty be disfigured or her wealth be stolen. Fulfill Thy promise that Thou didst make to Peter; seal Thy words with deeds. Fortify her gates, strengthen her bars, exalt her horn, raise up her head. Bless her sons, preserve her children, give peace to her priests and subdue those who wish her evil. May Thy peace dwell in her and drive away from her all evil schisms." St Ephraim of Syria
Ioannes, please please watch what you say and how you say it. If you would like to disagree, you may do so is a respected manner as others are doing. Do not, and I am stressing this, DO NOT take advantage of the freedom that the admins and especially Fr. Peter are giving to you. Fr Peter does not like to act as a dictator on the forum but if this argument of yours keeps going in every post that mentions other churches, your memebrship on this forum will be on the line.
As I have read through the post, Fr Peter has not said anything wrong. You're saying that he twists your word but instead your are the one who is twistsing his words (more like the words of the sources Abouna listed). You are being the person you hate; a Protestant who takes one verse to fulfill his argument leaves the others. Please do not use the name of Pope Kerrelos VI in vain. Until you have a proof to back up hat you say, than use it (even though I doubt there is any or even if so, the interpretation would be different).
[quote author=minagir link=topic=8994.msg112358#msg112358 date=1269476890] Ioannes, please please watch what you say and how you say it. If you would like to disagree, you may do so is a respected manner as others are doing. Do not, and I am stressing this, DO NOT take advantage of the freedom that the admins and especially Fr. Peter are giving to you. Fr Peter does not like to act as a dictator on the forum but if this argument of yours keeps going in every post that mentions other churches, your memebrship on this forum will be on the line.
As I have read through the post, Fr Peter has not said anything wrong. You're saying that he twists your word but instead your are the one who is twistsing his words (more like the words of the sources Abouna listed). You are being the person you hate; a Protestant who takes one verse to fulfill his argument leaves the others. Please do not use the name of Pope Kerrelos VI in vain. Until you have a proof to back up hat you say, than use it (even though I doubt there is any or even if so, the interpretation would be different).
I am sorry to say but Fr Peter did indeed twist my words as he said "So you are saying...". I do NOT hate protestants, again my parents are protestant. I am speaking against their belief, as many saints have spoken against many beliefs before me, not that I am a saint. I have said that I will provide evidence, please do not accuse me of using anyone name in vain. You dont have to like me but I am not a person that would do that.
Which church am I mentioning that is offending you? Am I not allowed to speak against beliefs that are harmful to our church, that are infiltrating our church? This word "dialogue" keeps getting thrown around. Again I ask, what is the purpose of this dialogue? What is the goal? I do not disagree with dialogue and I never have, what I disagree with is dialogue that seeks to gain a false unity based one a few common beliefs, this is exactly what the WCC website states!
Supply me the verses I have taken out of context to fulfill my argument. Believe me when I say that I read the scriptures with the Holy Fathers of our church. This is why I keep stressing them. I told Fr Peter I am getting a recording from St Minas Monastery in Egypt and I will gladly copy it and give it to him. I have thus far supplied plenty of evidence, I have no need to lie. Again if I am wrong why hasnt anyone pointed to the verses I am taking out of context, or the early church fathers that I am quoting and how they are wrong?
Minagir, you do not know me enough to accuse me of hate, that is a very strong word. While I use plain speak and strong words I have never accused anyone of hate simply because I speak against their false beliefs. Dont tell me to respect someone then disrespect me. I am not the only one combating this heresy that has infiltrated the church. I will speak truth until proven otherwise, if you or anyone else wish to kick me off, so be it. Fr Peter HAS acted as a dictator, specifically telling me to only post topics relating to lent, then letting topics of a sexual nature go. Commenting on topics such as these. That is hipocrytical (sp?). It is a subject that rubs him, and many others, the wrong way.
He has not even entertained the idea that maybe it is wrong. He has not taken anything I have said, and the witnesses I have presented, seriously. I hate to see how this church is conforming to the times. Keep telling yourself its just "dialogue" with no clear goal. That is absurd. Any rational person who did just a bit of research can see that ecumenism is heretical. We acknowledge the catholic communion?!?!? That is anti scriptural and here is why.
Rome uses unleavened bread, we used leavened. Why? The Greek word used in scripture is "artos" meaning leavened. Nowhere does it refer to the bread, especially during the last supper, as "azima" which means unleavened bread. So by saying, yea Rome you are right, then we have become anti scriptural. Do you not see the logic in that? If not then you must be mentally defective, that goes for any foolish person that believes in this false unity.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112359#msg112359 date=1269479641] Minagir, you do not know me enough to accuse me of hate, that is a very strong word. While I use plain speak and strong words I have never accused anyone of hate simply because I speak against their false beliefs. Dont tell me to respect someone then disrespect me. i only judged the words that you are typing. if your strong words bring on the wrong massage that choose better words to do so. do not condemn others with misunderstanding you for your fault of words choice. I guess i might of forgot to include that i meant your hate towards "the belief" and not the person.
I am not the only one combating this heresy that has infiltrated the church. I will speak truth until proven otherwise, if you or anyone else wish to kick me off, so be it. Fr Peter HAS acted as a dictator, specifically telling me to only post topics relating to lent, then letting topics of a sexual nature go. Commenting on topics such as these. That is hipocrytical (sp?). It is a subject that rubs him, and many others, the wrong way.
Nope....not a dictator at all. a dictator would have not giving you all of these chances to post to explain yourself....untill now odsoh is still giving you the chance and instead you keep arguing for the sake of argument.
He has not even entertained the idea that maybe it is wrong. He has not taken anything I have said, and the witnesses I have presented, seriously. I hate to see how this church is conforming to the times. Keep telling yourself its just "dialogue" with no clear goal. That is absurd. Any rational person who did just a bit of research can see that ecumenism is heretical. We acknowledge the catholic communion?!?!? That is anti scriptural and here is why. Rome uses unleavened bread, we used leavened. Why? The Greek word used in scripture is "artos" meaning leavened. Nowhere does it refer to the bread, especially during the last supper, as "azima" which means unleavened bread. So by saying, yea Rome you are right, then we have become anti scriptural. Do you not see the logic in that? If not then you must be mentally defective, that goes for any foolish person that believes in this false unity.
you are still repeating yourself and not accepting ANY of the words that were said before....none of whatsoever. You are still just attacking and not accepting or even comprehending what is being said to you. If this keeps on, i don't think there is any need of your opinion....with all due respect, if your opinion will hurt the rest here on this COPTIC ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN forum, than there is no need of it. You don't trust Church's Pope, bishops or priest.....than how are you part of it?! beats me to know....
It is not our job to go seek unity, I am glad u finally admit that the ultimate goal is unity. You are foolish in that you ignore the stated goal of the wcc and instead say, it's just dialogue. You are foolish because you refuse to see the truth, that this liberalization is destroying our congregation. No one comes to Christ unless the Father wills it, so why are we forcing it?
You and many others are leaving the foundation of our church behind in favor of "unity". You are foolish in that you cannot see how relative this is making our church. You are a cool for not watching as Christ commanded and are partaking in a heresy that will ultimately destroy our church. You Fr Peter are a fool,and anyone else that ignores fact in favor of someones opinion because of their rank is foolish too.
Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause[a] shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112350#msg112350 date=1269468395] You know Fr Peter you continually try and make me look foolish by twisting my words all around, I expect more from a priest. I take pope kyrillos side for many reasons, it is best not to discuss why pope shenouda is wrong in this setting.
It is not our job to go seek unity, I am glad u finally admit that the ultimate goal is unity. You are foolish in that you ignore the stated goal of the wcc and instead say, it's just dialogue. You are foolish because you refuse to see the truth, that this liberalization is destroying our congregation. No one comes to Christ unless the Father wills it, so why are we forcing it?
You and many others are leaving the foundation of our church behind in favor of "unity". You are foolish in that you cannot see how relative this is making our church. You are a cool for not watching as Christ commanded and are partaking in a heresy that will ultimately destroy our church. You Fr Peter are a fool,and anyone else that ignores fact in favor of someones opinion because of their rank is foolish too.
Ioannes,
Seriously, I've got to know Fr. Peter quite well, I can confirm you really have the wrong end of the stick. Disagree with him all you like, but he hasn't said anything wrong. Regardless, you've over stepped the line Ioannes. Seriously. How dare you talk to someone that way!????????? Whether a priest or not, that's TOTALLY unacceptable.
Look man - what exactly is your problem? That's what I want to know. You feel that dialogue between churches is wrong, because dialog is the same as unity for you? OK.. that's great. I would respectfully disagree. I believe dialog BUILDS understanding and respect. Through Dialog with other denominations, we have evangelised our faith. It is through Dialog that we bridge the gap of misunderstanding. Dialog is vital, whether IN the Church, or outside of it. That's my opinion, and also, there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIALOG AND UNITY.
Fr. Peter CLEARLY does not recommend ANY Coptic Christian become Catholic. He is a devout Coptic Christian, with respect for the RC. That's good!!
You need to tell us YOUR REAL problem: what's bothering u?
What is really bothering u?
Fr. Peter is also not someone who believes in compromising our Orthodox faith for the sake of unity. Not at all. He has never stated otherwise.
Just summarise it for me and everyone, - what IS your problem??
This is what happens when someone has an opposing point of view. You are all interpreting my words as being angry. I am not angry with Fr Peter, or with anyone on this site. I do however dislike his beliefs, and when I say he contradicted the church fathers I am referring to a previous discussion, one in which he conveniently removed. I have shown that by accepting the Roman "sacrament" we become anti scriptural. Why not address the things I am saying? Why accuse me of misinterpreting without giving what you perceive as the correct interpretation? The scriptures clearly state, in Greek, that the bread is leavened and not unleavened. Artos being the word used, not azima. Thats just one small example why tyhis "dialogue" is wrong.
Yet because I freely speak against Fr Peter's erroneous beliefs, I am accused of hatred, misinterpretation, defamation of Pope Kyrillos, etc. You accuse me of not giving supporting evidence, yet I am being accused without sufficient evidence. If any of you would like I can, once again, give you the witnesses that testify on behalf of this argument. Dont misinterpret what I am saying and how I am saying it because I am speaking in a direct way, that is more of a reflection on you than it is me if you interpret me as being angry.
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112378#msg112378 date=1269524269] This is what happens when someone has an opposing point of view. You are all interpreting my words as being angry.
No.. i never interpreted it as being angry. It was just downright rude. Period.
I am not angry with Fr Peter, or with anyone on this site. I do however dislike his beliefs, and when I say he contradicted the church fathers I am referring to a previous discussion, one in which he conveniently removed.
This is a new thread, and you are causing unnecessary distraction by talking about a previous thread. This thread is whether or not its OK to take communion in Catholic (and vice versa).
I have shown that by accepting the Roman "sacrament" we become anti scriptural.
Look Ioannes, The CoC does NOT condone a Coptic person having communion in the Roman Catholic Church. That's ONE MAIN thing. Secondly, it does recognise that it IS the Holy Body of Christ on the Catholic Altar. Recognising it is not the same as condoning us partaking of it.
I personally ended up in the RC and had consent to have the Holy Communion there. That's ME personally. It has nothing to do with Fr. Peter.
And Like i said, if there was a Coptic Church, I would prefer the Coptic 100000000000's over the Catholic for the reasons I mentioned.
So Ioannes, for you, the millions of Catholics who are married in the Catholic Church: ARE THEY LIVING IN ADULTERY BECUAUSE YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE SACRAMENT OF THEIR MARRIAGE?
Why not address the things I am saying? Why accuse me of misinterpreting without giving what you perceive as the correct interpretation? The scriptures clearly state, in Greek, that the bread is leavened and not unleavened. Artos being the word used, not azima. Thats just one small example why tyhis "dialogue" is wrong.
Yes - OK.. the Catholics do NOT do things that are Orthodox... I agree - so?
Why don't you ask nicely something like "Can anyone here confirm that the CoC believes that this IS the True Body of Christ on the Catholic Altar"?
I just told you what we were taught in Sunday School. You are free to ask again.
Yet because I freely speak against Fr Peter's erroneous beliefs,
He has said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING erroneous. Because Fr. Peter hasn't disagreed with what I said, it doesnt mean he has agreed with it!! But you must learn to ask things without attacking.
I am accused of hatred, misinterpretation, defamation of Pope Kyrillos, etc.
We are telling you that the way you deal with Fr. Peter is rude. Period.
You accuse me of not giving supporting evidence, yet I am being accused without sufficient evidence. If any of you would like I can, once again, give you the witnesses that testify on behalf of this argument.
Because All the Catholics got married in the Catholic Church, and not the Orthodox Church - does their marriage count? The priest did not put on crowns on their heads. They did not pray the same exact words as us either when we get married in our Churches. Therefore, all these 10000000000000000 of Catholic marriages are void in God's eyes? Like the Eucharist?
Do you believe that???
Dont misinterpret what I am saying and how I am saying it because I am speaking in a direct way, that is more of a reflection on you than it is me if you interpret me as being angry.
Speak directly, or indirectly, but please be respectful.
First Zoxa, tell me what I said that was rude? I am direct, and when someone is say being foolish, then are they not a fool? Here is a direct quote from Fr. Peter, what he is saying is factual: "i. In 1973 His Holiness Pope Shenouda met with Pope Paul VI. They issued a joint statement in which His Holiness Pope Shenouda makes and agree with the following comment.
The divine life is given to us and is nourished in us through the seven sacraments of Christ in His Church: Baptism, Chrism (Confirmation), Holy Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Matrimony and Holy Orders.
This seems to me to show that he is expressing the view that the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church are indeed sacraments. The 'us' in this joint statement must include both the Coptic Orthodox and the Roman Catholic communities in the minds of His Holiness Pope Shenouda and Pope Paul VI who signed it."
Right here clearly shows that Pope Shenouda is in conflict with scriptures. I will repeat myself again. In scripture when Christ refers to the bread at the last supper, the establishment of the sacrament of holy communion, He states the Greek word "artos" which means leavened bread, azima, the Greek word for unleavened is never used. Yet Rome chooses to used unleavened based on a fools logic. This is clearly in contradiction with the scriptures, so am I to place Pope Shenouda's word over scripture? Do I believe that they are living in adultery? Of course, if I said otherwise I would be contradicting the validity of our church.
The only reason I refer to another thread is because this discussion got off course with accusations against me on your part, and another member. Ask things without attacking? I think you should heed your own advice. Fr Peter and I are very familiar with each others stance on this sort of issue. He proved my point in giving us the history that shows that Pope Shenouda contradicted the scriptures by validating Rome's perverted version of the Eucharist.
I will leave you with a quote from a modern day saint. He was spiritual father to Fr Bishoy Kamel, another great saint, AND Pope Shenouda, who openly attacked his beliefs, which are well in line with scripture and the church fathers. Matta el Meskeen said this of Pope Shenouda: "Shenouda's appointment was the beginning of the trouble. The mind replaced inspiration, and planning replaced prayer. For the first years I prayed for him, but I see the church is going from bad to worse because of his behavior."
Matta el Meskeen is a great saint and held a position of authority, I am not comparing myself to him in any way but showing that nobody is in error for questioning or speaking directly. If you do not like how I talk, then avoid the conversation.
I hesitate to respond to this thread again, but perhaps I need to explain to others here that in fact our brothers and sisters in the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church also use unleavened bread in their eucharist, and always have done so.
We are in complete union with the Armenian Orthodox Church who are as Orthodox as we are in the Coptic Orthodox Church. Therefore it is clear that the issue of unleavened or leavened bread does not have the importance which Ioaness gives it.
Ioannes says,
Rome chooses to used unleavened based on a fools logic. This is clearly in contradiction with the scriptures, so am I to place Pope Shenouda's word over scripture?
It seems reasonable to conclude that Ioannes thinks that the Armenian Orthodox Church, the first national Orthodox Church in the world, which has been in communion with us since the beginning, is also following a 'fools logic'? (I really don't like people being called fools here on tasbeha. I can bear it for myself as I am a fool, but I would rather it was not applied to others, and especially to other Orthodox Churches).
When I was at Constantinople for the enthronement of Patriarch Mesrob of the Armenians I received unleavened bread in the eucharist, as did all of the Oriental Orthodox bishops, including my own, who were present to consecrate Patriarch Mesrob - and including HG Bishop Serapion. Were they all wrong to receive communion from our sister Armenian Orthodox Church because they used unleavened bread?
Fr. Peter, shall we put the Armenians above scriptures? Shall we put Pope Shenouda's opinion above scripture? The scripture is clear and I am astounded that a Priest would accept this. Why do you continually use these types of arguments? Can you argue against scripture? Who are you, or any of us to contradict what Christ Himself has said? Can we then say this holy sacrament is just a symbol and not the actual body and blood of Christ?
You are correct Fr. Peter you are a fool, just as I am. Any "Orthodox" that contradicts the scriptures is not just a foolish person but heretical, just as we condemned the heretics before for contradicting scripture. Am I wrong for defending scripture over error? In 1054 this was one of the reasons for the the schism, and rightfully so, it is against what Christ has said, so why are you arguing with this? Yes Fr. Peter, the Armenians are incorrect just as you are. I will not stand aside while you and others belittle the scriptures, not just that but what Christ Himself says in the scriptures. Why did Christ choose to use the word artos, specifically? He could have said ANY bread will do. He did not say azima, unleavened bread, he specifically said leavened bread.
I love and respect the priesthood but pity those who choose to pervert it by mocking the church fathers as well as scripture. This is another indication that papal infallibility exists and is practiced in our church as a kind of unwritten belief. May God have mercy on all of us!
I have to admit that I am shocked, and see no real value in continuing with this discussion since you are confident to even dismiss the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church saying,
Shall we put the Armenians above scriptures? Shall we put Pope Shenouda's opinion above scripture? ... Any "Orthodox" that contradicts the scriptures is not just a foolish person but heretical, just as we condemned the heretics before for contradicting scripture....the Armenians are incorrect just as you are.
The question is surely whether it is wise for any layman, especially one who is a relatively new Christian, to put himself not only above Pope Shenouda, but also above an entire Orthodox Church with a history of 1700 years faithfulness to the Orthodox Faith.
If you feel that your knowledge and insight is above an entire Orthodox Church then you will not be moved by anything I could say.
First of all, Abouna Matta el Maskeen is not a saint. He may have had his time but is considered to have fallen into heresy and caused many problems for the church. You're quote that you have is taken out of the context of the situation. Abouna Matta el Maskeen WANTED to become the patriarch instead of HH and felt he was better suited for it. Have you ever heard a saint say, I was praying for him but then i realized things are going to get worse for the church because of him so i stopped!? I respect Abouna and God only knows where his place lies but he is never/was never a voice of authority to be quoted like that. I cannot believe how much disdain you have for HH to be quoting abouna matta el maskeen. Sayedna(OUR MASTER) HH has enlightened the congregation and the people more than any other patriarch has. Each patriarch has been appointed by GOD and is chosen by GOD for different reasons. I'm not saying each was perfect, no God forbid but none the less each appointed by God. The patriarchs, St Athanasius, St. Cyril, St Dioscorous etc etc were chosen to defend the faith. Sayedna el Baba Kyrillos was a man of prayer and miracles. He strengthened the faith through the miracles he performed which was needed for the people. HH now has enlightened us through the many many books he has published and written for a congregation who was almost completely ignorant about everything!
Secondly, you have neglected to notice that many of us have posted from Matthew 5, the Lords sermon on the mount. Are you also forgetting scripture for your own agenda!?
It is not our job to go seek unity, I am glad u finally admit that the ultimate goal is unity. You are foolish in that you ignore the stated goal of the wcc and instead say, it's just dialogue. You are foolish because you refuse to see the truth, that this liberalization is destroying our congregation. No one comes to Christ unless the Father wills it, so why are we forcing it?
You and many others are leaving the foundation of our church behind in favor of "unity". You are foolish in that you cannot see how relative this is making our church. You are a cool for not watching as Christ commanded and are partaking in a heresy that will ultimately destroy our church. You Fr Peter are a fool,and anyone else that ignores fact in favor of someones opinion because of their rank is foolish too.
Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause[a] shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.
[quote author=jydeacon link=topic=8994.msg112354#msg112354 date=1269471301] [quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112350#msg112350 date=1269468395] You know Fr Peter you continually try and make me look foolish by twisting my words all around, I expect more from a priest. I take pope kyrillos side for many reasons, it is best not to discuss why pope shenouda is wrong in this setting.
It is not our job to go seek unity, I am glad u finally admit that the ultimate goal is unity. You are foolish in that you ignore the stated goal of the wcc and instead say, it's just dialogue. You are foolish because you refuse to see the truth, that this liberalization is destroying our congregation. No one comes to Christ unless the Father wills it, so why are we forcing it?
You and many others are leaving the foundation of our church behind in favor of "unity". You are foolish in that you cannot see how relative this is making our church. You are a cool for not watching as Christ commanded and are partaking in a heresy that will ultimately destroy our church. You Fr Peter are a fool,and anyone else that ignores fact in favor of someones opinion because of their rank is foolish too.
Ioannes,
I understand your zeal but the tone you take with Fr. Peter is not acceptable at all. Would you ever dare to speak to your real father like that, let alone a spiritual father the way you speak to Fr. Peter? If so may God forgive you. "...And whoever says to his brother Raca! will be in danger of the council. But whoever says, You fool! shall be in danger of hell fire." You need to take your tone down man and show some respect.
Clearly you couldn't have overlooked this piece of scripture! You need to show some respect on this website, we are all getting tired of the rude comments you make on here.
Hello All, This is my first, and probably the last time replying on this forum. However, I feel like I can't go on reading and not say anything.
Forgive me, I have sinned. Fr. Peter please absolve me to speak.
It seems that Ioannes is stuck on the whole Eucharist Issue.
Let's clear up some points. The reason I know the following information is because I personally know one of the people that represents our church in these dialogues.
It is true that Pope Shenouda did sign an agreement with Pope Paul VI as was mentioned before. By the way, it wasn't just Pope Shenouda, but the whole delegation that was with him who are experts on theology and rituals.
The statement was previously stated, so I will not repeat it. But it said something to the effect that both the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church believe that the saving effects of the cross are delivered to us through the seven sacraments. Namely, Baptism, Chrismation, Repentance and Confession, Holy Eucharist, Priesthood, Unction of the Sick, and Holy Matrimony.
The statement also agreed on other things such as Christology.
Anyways, concerning the sacraments, all the agreement said is that we agree that without the Sacraments there is no salvation and that these are the seven Sacraments of the church. Both sides never agreed on how the sacraments should be carried out. We never said that we will accept their Eucharist, or baptism. In fact, the Church Orthodox Church doesn't accept any of the sacraments of the Roman Catholic church.
Now we have to understand what happened after this agreement was signed. The Roman Catholic church is obviously also in dialogue with other churches. They also signed an agreement with a Nestorian Church, (I don't know specifics). Once this occurred, our agreement with them became NULL AND VOID. So, all in all, it has no significant these days since it is as if it never happened.
Now concerning the Holy Eucharist specifically and that the RC church's use of unleavened bread. Ioannes, you are correct in saying that the four accounts of the Gospel all say "Artos" and not "Azymos". Artos specifically refers to leavened bread and Azymos specifically refers to unleavened bread (A=without, Zymos=enzyme). In fact, this is one of the main points of dialogue between the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic churches. We are requiring that they use leavened bread because they are using unleavened bread for the wrong reasons. Their reasoning behind it is that since Christ celebrated the passover with the disciples on the same night that he instituted the Eucharist, then there is no way that He could have found any leaven to make the bread with. However, we have to correct answer, and it is outside the scope of this topic to try to explain.
I don't know much about the Armenian Church. I do know that they use unleavened bread, and it has been that way since the very beginning even before the RC church started to use unleavened bread. In other words, the RC church at one point did use leavened bread. I THINK (only my opinion) the reason the Aremenians are allowed to use it is because they have some belief that leaven represents sin. The scriptures did say to get rid of the leaven of the pharisees. Anyways, I'm not too sure and I will be asking experts soon about this topic.
Now concerning Dialogues in general: Regardless of what the WCC website says, we know we may never reach Unity. Although it would be nice. However, I want to assure you we will NOT give up anything concerning the True Faith and Holy Tradition. By the way, once in one of Pope Shenouda's sermons on Wednesday, He was asked what is the current status on the dialogues between the churches and if any agreement has been reached. His answer was basically, what are we going to agree on? We will never agree with purgatory, or immaculate conception, or unleavened eucharist, or Sprinkling Batism, etc.... Also, We all know how firm Bishop Bishoy, one of the people that always presides over these dialogues, is and how strong his faith in our church is. So be assured that the church is in good hands.
I think this is all I want to say. Please pray for me.
Comments
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112289#msg112289 date=1269380322]
Nobody realizes that St Pope Kyrillos was vehemently opposed to ecumenism. I would expect Fr Peter to know this, being that he is well read, either that or just ignorant of the past. FACT Fr Peter you are wrong and are clearly ignorant of Coptic history and this is why I am so direct with you, you have said many things that contradict the early church fathers, I cannot stand aside while you spout liberal non sense.
I am not sure what 'liberal nonsense' you are referring to? I have just spent an hour or so researching the references I provided above from His Holiness Pope Shenouda, H.E.
Metropolitan Bishoy, our Holy Synod, Patriarchs Karekin, Aram, Zakka Iwas and many others. Indeed I refrained from doing anything much than posting what these Fathers have written. So if what I have written is liberal nonsense then I do not see how you can avoid
accusing all of these Fathers of teaching liberal nonsense?
Fr Peter you are relying on our bishops of today without realizing that many are in conflict with the eArly church fathers, which clearly shows you a not very well read. And these silly statements that no other Copt would say these things is silly, I know many that understand the evils of ecumenism or as you say "dialogue". Again you fail to make any case In defense of your argument. Pope Kyrillos was against ecumenism
and many if not all of the early church fathers witness on my behalf.
I personally do not believe in infallibility as you clearly do, and many Copts on this website. You need to study the early church fathers as you are lacking in that area, I think you will be suprised when you see how wrong you are.
It would be a help to know if you are Coptic Orthodox, Ioannes? or belong to one of the sister Churches. I do find it hard to believe that a member of the Coptic Orthodox Church would read all of these statements made by our bishops and patriarchs and then accuse me of 'spouting liberal nonsense'.
Father Peter
Ioaness you haven't posted anything?
Yes, for some reason it didnt post what I typed. I was typing from my Iphone, which I am terrible at so maybe that is why. Basically I have continually tried to point out to Fr. Peter that while he is relying on some of our current bishops and the popes opinion, I am relying on our church fathers and what they have to say on ecumenism, although Fr Peter continually uses the word "dialogue" as if that is supposed to make a difference. A dialogue for what? UNITY!
I have also pointed out that one of the greatest modern saints in our church St Pope Kyrillos was vehemently against ecumenism, yet our current Pope is the complete opposite. So both cannot be correct, so either one you choose, then your saying the other is wrong. I go with Pope Kyrillos, for reasons we should not discuss in this forum.
Time and time again I have given to Fr Peter witnesses that speak on my behalf, St John Chrysostom, St Cyprian of Carthage, St Paul, and Christ Himself. All Fr Peter has been able to muster is the phrase "I agree with certain bishops, and the Pope" as if the pope is somehow infallible. This is not an attack on anyone, as some people percieve. It goes to show that the doctrine of papal infallibility is practiced in our church, even though the church does not believe in that doctrine.
Fr Peter, God bless him, cannot let go of the idea that there is absolute truth. He told me that protestantism is a "half truth" or that they dont have the full truth. How can you have a partial truth? Rev 3:16 Christ tells us that he will vomit out the lukewarm, neither hot nor cold. Meaning you are either one or the other, this clearly showing that absolute does exist. Also Luke 11:23 "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth." The body of Christ on earth is His church. That church is the Orthodox Church, so if your not with the church your against Christ.
I know there is no convincing Fr Peter or many on this site in fact. The problem is, the evidence is stacked against you on the issue of ecumenism. You stand in opposition to the saints, to our beloved St Pope Kyrillos. Fr Peter will just continue to hide behind the Pope and offer no real substance to his argument.
By the way Fr Peter, you have clearly shown your bias towards me. Any topic I have posted that didnt directly deal with lent you told me to be quiet, and yet I see several topics on a variety of non lent and borderline offensive subjects.
P.S. I am Coptic. I belong to St George Coptic Orthodox Church in Toledo, Ohio. I work closely with many Ethiopian Orthodox, most if not all are staunchly opposed to ecumenism. I help many of them deal with the disease of protestantism that has infected their nation. I have previously extended the offer to you, which got me into trouble with another site moderator, but if you would like to discuss this matter in another forum I would be happy to. I supplied you with my phone number if you feel that would be better, or perhaps you can call my Abouna?
Fr Peter, God bless him, cannot let go of the idea that there is absolute truth. He told me that protestantism is a "half truth" or that they dont have the full truth. How can you have a partial truth? Rev 3:16 Christ tells us that he will vomit out the lukewarm, neither hot nor cold. Meaning you are either one or the other, this clearly showing that absolute does exist. Also Luke 11:23 "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth." The body of Christ on earth is His church. That church is the Orthodox Church, so if your not with the church your against Christ.
I think this is so clear Ioannes. You're mixing up 2 different things here.
When Christ tells us to be either cold or hot , he means in our relationship with Him. Either we love him and we try to strive to be closer and sin less and be more Holy in all that we do, or we just admit that we don't want him, and live away from him. But not both. We don't go off and pretend we love him and do the exact opposite.
That has nothing to do with Protestants or Catholics: they will read that same verse the same way I've just understood it.
Having partial truth means they are not Orthodox, they are lacking, but they DO have some truth. That's just basic common sense. Do you agree that, for example, Protestants believe in the Holy Trinity, Christ died for them, and Christ loves them? These are truths. They have a partial view of the full picture. It doesn't mean that what they've seen is incorrect, but rather its incomplete.
I certainly don't believe in the infallibility of Popes or bishops. I am not sure why you keep saying that I do? Is there anything from any of my written papers which are all on the internet which would allow you to conclude such a thing?
Nevertheless we are members of an hierarchical Church, and the Pope and our bishops are the shepherds of our Christian community. It is a very serious matter to disagree with our Pope and the Holy Synod. It seems to me that it is very easy to have a personal opinion, and convince ourselves that we alone read the Fathers correctly. But our Orthodox Faith is not at heart a matter of intellectual study where we can gain a better knowledge than a priest or bishop and therefore think that we are more Orthodox. I have myself also wrestled with this same intellectual temptation, but it is a form of pride.
The bishops receive a special grace at their consecration, and I have discovered since my ordination as a priest that truly the grace of the priesthood is not simply a matter of management structures but represents a true charism - which can be ignored or denied since priests and bishops are also people - but which is more usually being integrated before us into the life of the priest or bishop, who struggles as we all do, and yet must struggle in front of everyone else.
What this means, as I understand it in my own life, is that we must seek to obediently and sympathetically understand what our bishops and Pope and patriarchs are saying on the one hand, while having a knowledge of the Fathers on the other hand. And we must seek to come to a balanced understanding of these two sources. If we rely on our own reading of the Fathers then we are actually just relying on our own knowledge - which is often pride.
There are issues I have had with some expressions of the Holy Synod's view on things, but I have come to understand that by integrating their response to various issues with my own understanding I come to a much fuller and rounded view of things than by judging the Synod by the measure of my own reading of the Fathers. On some other matters I have assumed that my reading and knowledge of the Fathers was correct and that others were wrong, but I have also learned that in fact they were correct and I needed to modify my own views.
Perhaps this is something you need to consider? That the bishops and Pope are not wrong, but that they are offering a different perspective and a different understanding of a much wider range of Fathers than the two you keep mentioning, which is appropriate for times and circumstances in which we find ourselves.
As to absolute and partial truth. Well I am surprised that you seem to unable to understand what I mean, but I am clearly at fault for not explaining very well. Our Orthodox Faith is not a matter of gaining theological knowledge and passing exams. We are all of us in error on some point of faith and none of us would get 100% in an exam. But in any case, as I tell my catechumens, Orthodoxy is not a matter of knowledge of propositions ABOUT God it is a growing knowledge OF God. Clearly there are members of this forum who are in error on various things, that does not make them heretics and non-Orthodox. It makes them Orthodox who are confused and in error on some issues.
It is also clear that as Pope Shenouda and our bishops insist, there are many issues on which the Roman Catholic Church and the Byzantine Church is entirely in agreement with our Orthodox Faith. Therefore on these issues what they teach is true. Yet there are other issues where what they teach is not clearly Orthodox. Therefore they are partially true in what they believe. I am not sure why is this hard to understand? What you are proposing - that everyone must be 100% correct and accurate in everything they believe or they are not Orthodox - would mean that a large proportion of Orthodox faithful who receive communion each week and are committed to Christ would be cast out of the Church because there was one thing or another in which they were in error. Indeed are you so very certain that everything you believe is 100% correct? If not then you also would be cast out.
I am not sure that there would be many people left in the Church if everyone was excluded who did not believe only that which was 100% correct. Indeed you have said that the Pope and many of our Coptic Orthodox bishops and myself are wrong - therefore you seem to me to be clearly proposing that we be cast out.
You say..
Fr Peter, God bless him, cannot let go of the idea that there is absolute truth. He told me that protestantism is a "half truth" or that they dont have the full truth. How can you have a partial truth? Rev 3:16 Christ tells us that he will vomit out the lukewarm, neither hot nor cold.
Is this addressed to me? to our bishops and Pope? or to Protestants, Catholics and Byzantines? How can it apply to them if they are not part of the Church? The letters in Rev 3 are addressed to the Churches not to those who are not Churches. Does it apply to those Coptic Orthodox who are not clear in their faith and have mixed error with truth? Surely a Copt who believes in purgatory has mixed truth with error, does this mean they cease to be Orthodox?
It would be helpful if you could please show where Pope Kyrillos was vehemently against ecumenism. It is clear, as you say, that Pope Shenouda and our Synod are not against dialogue with the Catholics, the Byzantines and others. I am not sure why you object to the word 'dialogue', it means a two way conversation, and it is the word which our Pope and bishops choose to use.
Father Peter
Fr Peter I dont know how you do not understand why dialogue and unity are virtually the same. What is the point of dialogue that has no common goal? Its clear this word is used to mask the goal of unity, why else would we have dialogue? To understand one another? Then get a book.
In this verse in Revelation it does pertain to the churches, notice all those churches no longer exist, the specific ones Christ mentions. It is a symbol, because heretics are now being considered "Christian" this is why Christ uses the word "vomit", because these people, especially including the lazy or lapsi Orthodox, were more of a sickness in the body of Christ.
You do realize that you have contradicted yourself. First you say that you do not believe in infallibility and are confused as to why I accuse you of that. I am not just accusing you but several people on this site as well. But you act as if bishops and even the pope cannot be questioned. You say that when you were consecrated that you received a "special grace". We all receive the Holy Spirit after baptism, is that not special? I believe this is one of the things Matta El Maskeen and Pope Shenouda disagreed on. Yes the Priests and Bishops have much more responsibility and judgment is much more harsh for them, but that does not mean they cannot be wrong. This does not mean that BECAUSE I am not a priest nor bishop I cannot be right.
Fr Peter I am not interpreting the early church fathers in a way that suits me. I would love for all to be Orthodox....but not at the expense of the church. I will indeed find you the sources for St Pope Kyrillos. The Russian patriarch had invited him to Russia for "dialogue" and St Pope Kyrillos politely responded that he could not because "we do not confess the same Faith" (this was years before the signing of the Joint Agreements between the OOs and the EOs). While I have all the respect in the world for Eastern Orthodox, I reject unity with them for many reasons.
Fr Peter I feel as if I am repeating myself every discussion we enter in to. You assert that I am misinterpreting the fathers, God forbid, then show me my error that I may correct it. As I said before you continually refer to a few current bishops and our pope without referring at all to the early church. I am not sure what else to say as I just keep reiterating the same thing.
I really think it is dangerous to read the Bible when you have your own personal agenda directing you. You'll interpret everything from the Bible to appease your own frustrations.
Its good to see that you are Orthodox and so attached to the faith, but extremism is never good. You are literally verging on fanatism, and I have no part with your opinion, nor people who think like you.
If I'm sad, I read the Bible to make me happy.
If I'm hurt, I read the Bible to make me better.
If I'm lacking wisdom, I read the Bible to make me wiser.
If I hate Protestants and Catholics, I read the Bible to make me hate them more. That's just wrong.
You say, It is not clear to me what you mean. Are you suggesting that ordination to the priesthood is not a sacrament and does not convey the special grace of the priesthood? It would not at all be Orthodox to deny such a special grace.
Father Peter
Take it easy man. I understand you are very zealous but like Zoxsasi said, extremism isn't the answer. Nobody here is saying the pope is infallible. We know he can make a mistake. However, its quite bold of you to disagree with someone who has been orthodox their whole lives and is a PONTIFF, while you have been orthodox for a few years. All need guidance when it comes to reading from the fathers and even from the Bible. If you read the bible according to your own understanding then that is in fact not orthodox. That is exactly what protestants believe. They have their own understanding and what makes a priest or bishop or pope right about what they are saying. I don't want to get into a theological debate here but obviously the GRACE(notice I say grace not Holy Spirit) we receive in baptism is not the same grace received for priesthood. If it were, then what is stopping you from conducting all services on your own, or say starting your own church. I'm not different than a priest so what the heck?
As for what you say about Pope kyrillos(who is not canonically a saint, even though I and everyone love him), don't you think its a double standard to say this pope is wrong and this pope is right. Both are right, at the time there had been no dialogue between these churches for hundreds of years, so both believed they were heretics. So what he did at the time was right. But now we have come to realize that they are not in fact heretics and that we do have the same exact faith. So what HH did now is right.
Why would you disagree with communion with the EO?
Ioannes,
You say, It is not clear to me what you mean. Are you suggesting that ordination to the priesthood is not a sacrament and does not convey the special grace of the priesthood? It would not at all be Orthodox to deny such a special grace.
You made it seem as if nobody outside the priesthood receives the Holy Spirit, so does that mean that you deny a sacrament. Is this how you choose to justify your ignorance? By trying to make me out to be a heretic? Everyone receives a special grace when they receive the Holy Spirit, this does not demean any sacrament, Fr Peter that is a very foolish argument. Why would you put such words into my mouth? While I respect the priesthood greatly, this is a clear example of why I have a hard time respecting you.
You time and time again divert from the topic at hand and then put words into my mouth, for what reason?I have presented evidence that you have failed to make a valid argument against, other than just saying you side with the pope, as if his word is some sort of infallible authority. Against all evidence you disagree. I also have a suprise for you, my good friend is bringing to me a recording done by Abouna Raphael of St Minas Monastery in Egypt, so you can hear for yourself about St Pope Kyrillos' stance on ecumenism.
John
this is the exact point I was trying to make. Pope Kyrillos was against it, and Pope Shenouda isnt. I never said either were infallible. If, God forbid, I am misinterpreting the scriptures or the early church fathers then please point it out to me, as I have asked Fr Peter several times to do, since quite clearly I am wrong in his eyes.Yet, Fr Peter has not been able to do this. I am weak and I dont claim to know all things I am not speaking on my behalf but with witnesses to this argument, if you would like me to present them again I will.
Mt 24:24 clearly states that "if it were possible, even the elect might be deceived". So if it is possible for someone to be deceived, then in all likelyhood it could happen. The necessity for ecumenism is not for us nor God, but for the antichrist. There needs to be unity in all aspects, social, political, economic, and religious. It only makes sense. I have quoted the WCC website which details their goal for one church based on our common beliefs. Fr Peter has asserted that I should be for dialogue if I am Christian. This is absurd! He also asserts that the WCC is just dialogue, well if so then what is the goal of dialogue? When I have dialogue with those of other religions, the goal is to bring them to the truth, so in that sense I believe in dialogue. Not Fr. Peters perverted sense of "dialogue" which is another way to say unity.
Where did I ever suggest that in baptism and chrismation the new believer does not receive the Holy Spirit. Never, because of course it is not true.
But you have still not indicated that you do believe that priests and bishops receive a special grace. You have only repeated that 'everyone receives a special grace'.
This is not what our Orthodox Faith teaches us.
Can you indicate that you do believe that priests and bishops receive a special grace which is not given to all baptised Orthodox?
On the point you make about Pope Kyrillos having a different view in regard to the the Russian Orthodox Church while he was Pope, I think that jydeacon has already responded to you and indicated that your are making the error of taking the opinion which is given in one situation and context and trying to apply it in all situations and contexts. The role of our bishops, as the living shepherds of the living Church, is to respond to the situations in which the Church finds itself and not simply apply judgements in a legalistic manner to situations which are different.
1700 years ago there was a great need to preserve the Church against those who were separating from her. This situation is found today with Max Michael and with some Western groups which are engaged in proselytism in Orthodox countries. There is a need to be strict and even harsh with such groups. But today Orthodoxy has an important role in drawing back together those Christians who have been separated for too long - and who continue to be separated through no wilful desire for schism. Our holy Fathers the bishops, the Pope, and the other Patriarchs of our Church, are engaged in this ministry of drawing separated Christians back together again. It is a godly and spiritual ministry and I make no apology for wholeheartedly supporting our fathers.
Let me very briefly mention the two fathers you keep raising. St John Chrysostom in his homilies against the Jews was dealing with members of another religion. He was also seeking to counter the attractions of a successful Jewish community among some of the weaker Christians in his community. So he spoke harshly. But a Roman Catholic is not a member of another religion, he is a Christian, and it is our responsibility to witness to our Orthodox Faith with generosity.
The othr Father, St Cyprian of Carthage, had a point of view which has never been universally accepted by Orthodox through the years. The view of our Fathers is made very clear by St Severus and St Timothy, and by the constant practice of the Coptic Orthodox Church into modern times. This view is that in the case of Byzantine Christians who are not members of the Orthodox Church, if they wish to join our communion then they should not be baptised or chrismated, and if they are priests or bishops they should be recieved as priests and bishops. Yet the same Fathers consider the Byzantine Church to be in error. But clearly not so much in error that it cannot have true sacraments and grace.
It is based on the teaching of St Severus and St Timothy, and St Dioscorus before that, that our own Pope Shenouda and his brother bishops, and all the bishops of the Oriental Orthodox communion have agreed that the Byzantine Church is Orthodox, even though it has been separated from our Orthodox communion for 1500 years. If St Severus, perhaps the greatest of theologians, certainly the equal of St Cyril and St Athanasius, considered that the Byzantines were still Christian even though in error, then I will never disagree with him. It is quite clear that our Church has never accepted the view of St Cyprian of Carthage as being universally applicable. Neither has any Orthodox Church.
Therefore your two Fathers, though they are undoubtedly Orthodox Fathers, do not support your negative view of every person who is not a member of our Church. One was speaking to a particular situation that we do not find ourselves generally in, and the other voiced an opinion that was not accepted by the Church at large. It is the role of our present bishops to gather together all of the teachings of the Fathers and interpret them into our present situations. It is as much a mistake to excerpt passages from 2 fathers and try and apply them everywhere, as it is to excerpt two passages from Scripture and apply them in a different context. We must take the whole of the teaching of the Fathers, as understood across the whole sweep of the history of the Church, and apply that teaching sensitively and not legalistically.
An example, one ruling from the ancient times states that Christians should not use a Jewish hairdresser upon pain of excommunication. Should this just be applied forever, in all places and circumstances, or were our fathers addressing a particular situation? Clearly they were addressing a particular situation and if a modern bishop said that there was not a problem in having a Jewish hairdresser he would not be teaching heresy, he would be doing his ministry, which is applying the teachings of the Church to the present situation.
Father Peter
It is not our job to go seek unity, I am glad u finally admit that the ultimate goal is unity. You are foolish in that you ignore the stated goal of the wcc and instead say, it's just dialogue. You are foolish because you refuse to see the truth, that this liberalization is destroying our congregation. No one comes to Christ unless the Father wills it, so why are we forcing it?
You and many others are leaving the foundation of our church behind in favor of "unity". You are foolish in that you cannot see how relative this is making our church. You are a cool for not watching as Christ commanded and are partaking in a heresy that will ultimately destroy our church. You Fr Peter are a fool,and anyone else that ignores fact in favor of someones opinion because of their rank is foolish too.
You know Fr Peter you continually try and make me look foolish by twisting my words all around, I expect more from a priest. I take pope kyrillos side for many reasons, it is best not to discuss why pope shenouda is wrong in this setting.
It is not our job to go seek unity, I am glad u finally admit that the ultimate goal is unity. You are foolish in that you ignore the stated goal of the wcc and instead say, it's just dialogue. You are foolish because you refuse to see the truth, that this liberalization is destroying our congregation. No one comes to Christ unless the Father wills it, so why are we forcing it?
You and many others are leaving the foundation of our church behind in favor of "unity". You are foolish in that you cannot see how relative this is making our church. You are a cool for not watching as Christ commanded and are partaking in a heresy that will ultimately destroy our church. You Fr Peter are a fool,and anyone else that ignores fact in favor of someones opinion because of their rank is foolish too.
Ioannes,
I understand your zeal but the tone you take with Fr. Peter is not acceptable at all. Would you ever dare to speak to your real father like that, let alone a spiritual father the way you speak to Fr. Peter? If so may God forgive you. "...And whoever says to his brother Raca! will be in danger of the council. But whoever says, You fool! shall be in danger of hell fire." You need to take your tone down man and show some respect.
please forgive me if I am speaking when I should have stayed silent. I can understand why each of you is so passionate about what you are saying. Both of you love the Holy Church very much. Ioannes I can see that you love the Church Fathers and are trying to protect the church. You do not wish for her teachings to be lost or diluted or compromised. This is good. Father Peter also loves the Church and loves our Holy Fathers. He also does not want the richness and truth of Orthodoxy to be lost. As I understand it he believes that dialogue with other Christian Churches is not something to fear. We as Orthodox Christians would not forget or dilute the Truth that we have preserved, cherished, loved, lived and who so many have died for. However, dialogue with other churches may help us to grow in humility, love and respect. It also may reveal to others some of the beauty of Orthodox Christianity. Our church is a wonderful light, we shud not hide it under a basket. In this time where other Christians are willing to listen and not argue, is it not a chance to share what we know about Christ. If we are humble and faithful and speak with love then maybe they will listen. Likewise we too, may be able to learn from them. If dialogue does not achieve anything theologically, perhaps at least we will learn to love and respect others more. It may bring peace between different peoples. It is ok to agree to disagree, and this may be the outcome of these dialogues, i guess time will tell. Do not fear, Christ promised that the gates of hades would not prevail against His Church. If our fathers are prayerful Christ will be the with them in their dialogue and if He does not want unity to happen it won't.
In the mean time, as I see it we must be careful to speak with each other gently and with love, even when we strongly strongly disagree with each other. In John 13 after Jesus washed the feet of His disciples and speaks about how Judas will betray Him He says..
"Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35).
So even though we might disagree with each other let everything we do be done in love as Christ asked us. Otherwise, like it says in 1 Corinthians 13 we are nothing and the good we do profits us nothing. People will not see the truth of Orthodox Christianity if they do not see Christ's love in us for one another and for them.
sorry this is a little long+sorry if i have just said stuff you knew already.
May God's grace and love be with you! =)
"When the world asks, "What is God like?" we should be able to say, "Look at the church." As the Body of Christ, we are to be like Jesus so that we too reveal God to the world."
William R. L. Haley
"Thou didst establish on earth the holy Church in the image of the heavenly kingdom: Thou didst build her with love, establish her with compassion and Thou didst spiritually betroth Thyself to her, and gain her by Thy suffering.But the hater of manking in his shameless impudence, attacks her in the person of her servers. O Lord, do not leave Thy holy Church without Thy care, that the promise which Thou didst utter concerning her invincibility may not be shown false. Do not let her majestic beauty be disfigured or her wealth be stolen. Fulfill Thy promise that Thou didst make to Peter; seal Thy words with deeds. Fortify her gates, strengthen her bars, exalt her horn, raise up her head. Bless her sons, preserve her children, give peace to her priests and subdue those who wish her evil. May Thy peace dwell in her and drive away from her all evil schisms."
St Ephraim of Syria
please please watch what you say and how you say it. If you would like to disagree, you may do so is a respected manner as others are doing. Do not, and I am stressing this, DO NOT take advantage of the freedom that the admins and especially Fr. Peter are giving to you. Fr Peter does not like to act as a dictator on the forum but if this argument of yours keeps going in every post that mentions other churches, your memebrship on this forum will be on the line.
As I have read through the post, Fr Peter has not said anything wrong. You're saying that he twists your word but instead your are the one who is twistsing his words (more like the words of the sources Abouna listed). You are being the person you hate; a Protestant who takes one verse to fulfill his argument leaves the others.
Please do not use the name of Pope Kerrelos VI in vain. Until you have a proof to back up hat you say, than use it (even though I doubt there is any or even if so, the interpretation would be different).
Ioannes,
please please watch what you say and how you say it. If you would like to disagree, you may do so is a respected manner as others are doing. Do not, and I am stressing this, DO NOT take advantage of the freedom that the admins and especially Fr. Peter are giving to you. Fr Peter does not like to act as a dictator on the forum but if this argument of yours keeps going in every post that mentions other churches, your memebrship on this forum will be on the line.
As I have read through the post, Fr Peter has not said anything wrong. You're saying that he twists your word but instead your are the one who is twistsing his words (more like the words of the sources Abouna listed). You are being the person you hate; a Protestant who takes one verse to fulfill his argument leaves the others.
Please do not use the name of Pope Kerrelos VI in vain. Until you have a proof to back up hat you say, than use it (even though I doubt there is any or even if so, the interpretation would be different).
I am sorry to say but Fr Peter did indeed twist my words as he said "So you are saying...". I do NOT hate protestants, again my parents are protestant. I am speaking against their belief, as many saints have spoken against many beliefs before me, not that I am a saint. I have said that I will provide evidence, please do not accuse me of using anyone name in vain. You dont have to like me but I am not a person that would do that.
Which church am I mentioning that is offending you? Am I not allowed to speak against beliefs that are harmful to our church, that are infiltrating our church? This word "dialogue" keeps getting thrown around. Again I ask, what is the purpose of this dialogue? What is the goal? I do not disagree with dialogue and I never have, what I disagree with is dialogue that seeks to gain a false unity based one a few common beliefs, this is exactly what the WCC website states!
Supply me the verses I have taken out of context to fulfill my argument. Believe me when I say that I read the scriptures with the Holy Fathers of our church. This is why I keep stressing them. I told Fr Peter I am getting a recording from St Minas Monastery in Egypt and I will gladly copy it and give it to him. I have thus far supplied plenty of evidence, I have no need to lie. Again if I am wrong why hasnt anyone pointed to the verses I am taking out of context, or the early church fathers that I am quoting and how they are wrong?
Minagir, you do not know me enough to accuse me of hate, that is a very strong word. While I use plain speak and strong words I have never accused anyone of hate simply because I speak against their false beliefs. Dont tell me to respect someone then disrespect me. I am not the only one combating this heresy that has infiltrated the church. I will speak truth until proven otherwise, if you or anyone else wish to kick me off, so be it. Fr Peter HAS acted as a dictator, specifically telling me to only post topics relating to lent, then letting topics of a sexual nature go. Commenting on topics such as these. That is hipocrytical (sp?). It is a subject that rubs him, and many others, the wrong way.
He has not even entertained the idea that maybe it is wrong. He has not taken anything I have said, and the witnesses I have presented, seriously. I hate to see how this church is conforming to the times. Keep telling yourself its just "dialogue" with no clear goal. That is absurd. Any rational person who did just a bit of research can see that ecumenism is heretical. We acknowledge the catholic communion?!?!? That is anti scriptural and here is why.
Rome uses unleavened bread, we used leavened. Why? The Greek word used in scripture is "artos" meaning leavened. Nowhere does it refer to the bread, especially during the last supper, as "azima" which means unleavened bread. So by saying, yea Rome you are right, then we have become anti scriptural. Do you not see the logic in that? If not then you must be mentally defective, that goes for any foolish person that believes in this false unity.
Minagir, you do not know me enough to accuse me of hate, that is a very strong word. While I use plain speak and strong words I have never accused anyone of hate simply because I speak against their false beliefs. Dont tell me to respect someone then disrespect me.
i only judged the words that you are typing. if your strong words bring on the wrong massage that choose better words to do so. do not condemn others with misunderstanding you for your fault of words choice.
I guess i might of forgot to include that i meant your hate towards "the belief" and not the person. Nope....not a dictator at all. a dictator would have not giving you all of these chances to post to explain yourself....untill now odsoh is still giving you the chance and instead you keep arguing for the sake of argument. you are still repeating yourself and not accepting ANY of the words that were said before....none of whatsoever. You are still just attacking and not accepting or even comprehending what is being said to you. If this keeps on, i don't think there is any need of your opinion....with all due respect, if your opinion will hurt the rest here on this COPTIC ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN forum, than there is no need of it. You don't trust Church's Pope, bishops or priest.....than how are you part of it?! beats me to know....
It is not our job to go seek unity, I am glad u finally admit that the ultimate goal is unity. You are foolish in that you ignore the stated goal of the wcc and instead say, it's just dialogue. You are foolish because you refuse to see the truth, that this liberalization is destroying our congregation. No one comes to Christ unless the Father wills it, so why are we forcing it?
You and many others are leaving the foundation of our church behind in favor of "unity". You are foolish in that you cannot see how relative this is making our church. You are a cool for not watching as Christ commanded and are partaking in a heresy that will ultimately destroy our church. You Fr Peter are a fool,and anyone else that ignores fact in favor of someones opinion because of their rank is foolish too.
Matthew 5:22
But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause[a] shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.
You know Fr Peter you continually try and make me look foolish by twisting my words all around, I expect more from a priest. I take pope kyrillos side for many reasons, it is best not to discuss why pope shenouda is wrong in this setting.
It is not our job to go seek unity, I am glad u finally admit that the ultimate goal is unity. You are foolish in that you ignore the stated goal of the wcc and instead say, it's just dialogue. You are foolish because you refuse to see the truth, that this liberalization is destroying our congregation. No one comes to Christ unless the Father wills it, so why are we forcing it?
You and many others are leaving the foundation of our church behind in favor of "unity". You are foolish in that you cannot see how relative this is making our church. You are a cool for not watching as Christ commanded and are partaking in a heresy that will ultimately destroy our church. You Fr Peter are a fool,and anyone else that ignores fact in favor of someones opinion because of their rank is foolish too.
Ioannes,
Seriously, I've got to know Fr. Peter quite well, I can confirm you really have the wrong end of the stick. Disagree with him all you like, but he hasn't said anything wrong. Regardless, you've over stepped the line Ioannes. Seriously. How dare you talk to someone that way!????????? Whether a priest or not, that's TOTALLY unacceptable.
Look man - what exactly is your problem? That's what I want to know. You feel that dialogue between churches is wrong, because dialog is the same as unity for you? OK.. that's great. I would respectfully disagree. I believe dialog BUILDS understanding and respect. Through Dialog with other denominations, we have evangelised our faith. It is through Dialog that we bridge the gap of misunderstanding. Dialog is vital, whether IN the Church, or outside of it. That's my opinion, and also, there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIALOG AND UNITY.
Fr. Peter CLEARLY does not recommend ANY Coptic Christian become Catholic. He is a devout Coptic Christian, with respect for the RC. That's good!!
You need to tell us YOUR REAL problem: what's bothering u?
What is really bothering u?
Fr. Peter is also not someone who believes in compromising our Orthodox faith for the sake of unity. Not at all. He has never stated otherwise.
Just summarise it for me and everyone, - what IS your problem??
Yet because I freely speak against Fr Peter's erroneous beliefs, I am accused of hatred, misinterpretation, defamation of Pope Kyrillos, etc. You accuse me of not giving supporting evidence, yet I am being accused without sufficient evidence. If any of you would like I can, once again, give you the witnesses that testify on behalf of this argument. Dont misinterpret what I am saying and how I am saying it because I am speaking in a direct way, that is more of a reflection on you than it is me if you interpret me as being angry.
This is what happens when someone has an opposing point of view. You are all interpreting my words as being angry.
No.. i never interpreted it as being angry. It was just downright rude. Period. This is a new thread, and you are causing unnecessary distraction by talking about a previous thread. This thread is whether or not its OK to take communion in Catholic (and vice versa). Look Ioannes, The CoC does NOT condone a Coptic person having communion in the Roman Catholic Church. That's ONE MAIN thing. Secondly, it does recognise that it IS the Holy Body of Christ on the Catholic Altar. Recognising it is not the same as condoning us partaking of it.
I personally ended up in the RC and had consent to have the Holy Communion there. That's ME personally. It has nothing to do with Fr. Peter.
And Like i said, if there was a Coptic Church, I would prefer the Coptic 100000000000's over the Catholic for the reasons I mentioned.
So Ioannes, for you, the millions of Catholics who are married in the Catholic Church: ARE THEY LIVING IN ADULTERY BECUAUSE YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE SACRAMENT OF THEIR MARRIAGE? Yes - OK.. the Catholics do NOT do things that are Orthodox... I agree - so?
Why don't you ask nicely something like "Can anyone here confirm that the CoC believes that this IS the True Body of Christ on the Catholic Altar"?
I just told you what we were taught in Sunday School. You are free to ask again. He has said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING erroneous. Because Fr. Peter hasn't disagreed with what I said, it doesnt mean he has agreed with it!! But you must learn to ask things without attacking. We are telling you that the way you deal with Fr. Peter is rude. Period. Because All the Catholics got married in the Catholic Church, and not the Orthodox Church - does their marriage count? The priest did not put on crowns on their heads. They did not pray the same exact words as us either when we get married in our Churches. Therefore, all these 10000000000000000 of Catholic marriages are void in God's eyes? Like the Eucharist?
Do you believe that??? Speak directly, or indirectly, but please be respectful.
"i. In 1973 His Holiness Pope Shenouda met with Pope Paul VI. They issued a joint statement in which His Holiness Pope Shenouda makes and agree with the following comment.
The divine life is given to us and is nourished in us through the seven sacraments of Christ in His Church: Baptism, Chrism (Confirmation), Holy Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Matrimony and Holy Orders.
This seems to me to show that he is expressing the view that the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church are indeed sacraments. The 'us' in this joint statement must include both the Coptic Orthodox and the Roman Catholic communities in the minds of His Holiness Pope Shenouda and Pope Paul VI who signed it."
Right here clearly shows that Pope Shenouda is in conflict with scriptures. I will repeat myself again. In scripture when Christ refers to the bread at the last supper, the establishment of the sacrament of holy communion, He states the Greek word "artos" which means leavened bread, azima, the Greek word for unleavened is never used. Yet Rome chooses to used unleavened based on a fools logic. This is clearly in contradiction with the scriptures, so am I to place Pope Shenouda's word over scripture?
Do I believe that they are living in adultery? Of course, if I said otherwise I would be contradicting the validity of our church.
The only reason I refer to another thread is because this discussion got off course with accusations against me on your part, and another member. Ask things without attacking? I think you should heed your own advice. Fr Peter and I are very familiar with each others stance on this sort of issue. He proved my point in giving us the history that shows that Pope Shenouda contradicted the scriptures by validating Rome's perverted version of the Eucharist.
I will leave you with a quote from a modern day saint. He was spiritual father to Fr Bishoy Kamel, another great saint, AND Pope Shenouda, who openly attacked his beliefs, which are well in line with scripture and the church fathers. Matta el Meskeen said this of Pope Shenouda: "Shenouda's appointment was the beginning of the trouble. The mind replaced inspiration, and planning replaced prayer. For the first years I prayed for him, but I see the church is going from bad to worse because of his behavior."
Matta el Meskeen is a great saint and held a position of authority, I am not comparing myself to him in any way but showing that nobody is in error for questioning or speaking directly. If you do not like how I talk, then avoid the conversation.
before I get more accusations of lying I wanted to make sure I cite the source
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,953135,00.html
I hesitate to respond to this thread again, but perhaps I need to explain to others here that in fact our brothers and sisters in the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church also use unleavened bread in their eucharist, and always have done so.
We are in complete union with the Armenian Orthodox Church who are as Orthodox as we are in the Coptic Orthodox Church. Therefore it is clear that the issue of unleavened or leavened bread does not have the importance which Ioaness gives it.
Ioannes says,
Rome chooses to used unleavened based on a fools logic. This is clearly in contradiction with the scriptures, so am I to place Pope Shenouda's word over scripture?
It seems reasonable to conclude that Ioannes thinks that the Armenian Orthodox Church, the first national Orthodox Church in the world, which has been in communion with us since the beginning, is also following a 'fools logic'? (I really don't like people being called fools here on tasbeha. I can bear it for myself as I am a fool, but I would rather it was not applied to others, and especially to other Orthodox Churches).
When I was at Constantinople for the enthronement of Patriarch Mesrob of the Armenians I received unleavened bread in the eucharist, as did all of the Oriental Orthodox bishops, including my own, who were present to consecrate Patriarch Mesrob - and including HG Bishop Serapion. Were they all wrong to receive communion from our sister Armenian Orthodox Church because they used unleavened bread?
Father Peter
You are correct Fr. Peter you are a fool, just as I am. Any "Orthodox" that contradicts the scriptures is not just a foolish person but heretical, just as we condemned the heretics before for contradicting scripture. Am I wrong for defending scripture over error? In 1054 this was one of the reasons for the the schism, and rightfully so, it is against what Christ has said, so why are you arguing with this? Yes Fr. Peter, the Armenians are incorrect just as you are. I will not stand aside while you and others belittle the scriptures, not just that but what Christ Himself says in the scriptures. Why did Christ choose to use the word artos, specifically? He could have said ANY bread will do. He did not say azima, unleavened bread, he specifically said leavened bread.
I love and respect the priesthood but pity those who choose to pervert it by mocking the church fathers as well as scripture. This is another indication that papal infallibility exists and is practiced in our church as a kind of unwritten belief. May God have mercy on all of us!
Shall we put the Armenians above scriptures? Shall we put Pope Shenouda's opinion above scripture? ... Any "Orthodox" that contradicts the scriptures is not just a foolish person but heretical, just as we condemned the heretics before for contradicting scripture....the Armenians are incorrect just as you are.
The question is surely whether it is wise for any layman, especially one who is a relatively new Christian, to put himself not only above Pope Shenouda, but also above an entire Orthodox Church with a history of 1700 years faithfulness to the Orthodox Faith.
If you feel that your knowledge and insight is above an entire Orthodox Church then you will not be moved by anything I could say.
Father Peter
First of all, Abouna Matta el Maskeen is not a saint. He may have had his time but is considered to have fallen into heresy and caused many problems for the church. You're quote that you have is taken out of the context of the situation. Abouna Matta el Maskeen WANTED to become the patriarch instead of HH and felt he was better suited for it. Have you ever heard a saint say, I was praying for him but then i realized things are going to get worse for the church because of him so i stopped!? I respect Abouna and God only knows where his place lies but he is never/was never a voice of authority to be quoted like that. I cannot believe how much disdain you have for HH to be quoting abouna matta el maskeen. Sayedna(OUR MASTER) HH has enlightened the congregation and the people more than any other patriarch has. Each patriarch has been appointed by GOD and is chosen by GOD for different reasons. I'm not saying each was perfect, no God forbid but none the less each appointed by God. The patriarchs, St Athanasius, St. Cyril, St Dioscorous etc etc were chosen to defend the faith. Sayedna el Baba Kyrillos was a man of prayer and miracles. He strengthened the faith through the miracles he performed which was needed for the people. HH now has enlightened us through the many many books he has published and written for a congregation who was almost completely ignorant about everything!
Secondly, you have neglected to notice that many of us have posted from Matthew 5, the Lords sermon on the mount. Are you also forgetting scripture for your own agenda!?
[quote author=grace08 link=topic=8994.msg112361#msg112361 date=1269488776]
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112350#msg112350 date=1269468395]
It is not our job to go seek unity, I am glad u finally admit that the ultimate goal is unity. You are foolish in that you ignore the stated goal of the wcc and instead say, it's just dialogue. You are foolish because you refuse to see the truth, that this liberalization is destroying our congregation. No one comes to Christ unless the Father wills it, so why are we forcing it?
You and many others are leaving the foundation of our church behind in favor of "unity". You are foolish in that you cannot see how relative this is making our church. You are a cool for not watching as Christ commanded and are partaking in a heresy that will ultimately destroy our church. You Fr Peter are a fool,and anyone else that ignores fact in favor of someones opinion because of their rank is foolish too.
Matthew 5:22
But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause[a] shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.
[quote author=jydeacon link=topic=8994.msg112354#msg112354 date=1269471301]
[quote author=Ioannes link=topic=8994.msg112350#msg112350 date=1269468395]
You know Fr Peter you continually try and make me look foolish by twisting my words all around, I expect more from a priest. I take pope kyrillos side for many reasons, it is best not to discuss why pope shenouda is wrong in this setting.
It is not our job to go seek unity, I am glad u finally admit that the ultimate goal is unity. You are foolish in that you ignore the stated goal of the wcc and instead say, it's just dialogue. You are foolish because you refuse to see the truth, that this liberalization is destroying our congregation. No one comes to Christ unless the Father wills it, so why are we forcing it?
You and many others are leaving the foundation of our church behind in favor of "unity". You are foolish in that you cannot see how relative this is making our church. You are a cool for not watching as Christ commanded and are partaking in a heresy that will ultimately destroy our church. You Fr Peter are a fool,and anyone else that ignores fact in favor of someones opinion because of their rank is foolish too.
Ioannes,
I understand your zeal but the tone you take with Fr. Peter is not acceptable at all. Would you ever dare to speak to your real father like that, let alone a spiritual father the way you speak to Fr. Peter? If so may God forgive you. "...And whoever says to his brother Raca! will be in danger of the council. But whoever says, You fool! shall be in danger of hell fire." You need to take your tone down man and show some respect.
Clearly you couldn't have overlooked this piece of scripture! You need to show some respect on this website, we are all getting tired of the rude comments you make on here.
This is my first, and probably the last time replying on this forum.
However, I feel like I can't go on reading and not say anything.
Forgive me, I have sinned. Fr. Peter please absolve me to speak.
It seems that Ioannes is stuck on the whole Eucharist Issue.
Let's clear up some points. The reason I know the following information is because I personally know one of the people that represents our church in these dialogues.
It is true that Pope Shenouda did sign an agreement with Pope Paul VI as was mentioned before. By the way, it wasn't just Pope Shenouda, but the whole delegation that was with him who are experts on theology and rituals.
The statement was previously stated, so I will not repeat it.
But it said something to the effect that both the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church believe that the saving effects of the cross are delivered to us through the seven sacraments. Namely, Baptism, Chrismation, Repentance and Confession, Holy Eucharist, Priesthood, Unction of the Sick, and Holy Matrimony.
The statement also agreed on other things such as Christology.
Anyways, concerning the sacraments, all the agreement said is that we agree that without the Sacraments there is no salvation and that these are the seven Sacraments of the church. Both sides never agreed on how the sacraments should be carried out. We never said that we will accept their Eucharist, or baptism. In fact, the Church Orthodox Church doesn't accept any of the sacraments of the Roman Catholic church.
Now we have to understand what happened after this agreement was signed.
The Roman Catholic church is obviously also in dialogue with other churches. They also signed an agreement with a Nestorian Church, (I don't know specifics). Once this occurred, our agreement with them became NULL AND VOID.
So, all in all, it has no significant these days since it is as if it never happened.
Now concerning the Holy Eucharist specifically and that the RC church's use of unleavened bread. Ioannes, you are correct in saying that the four accounts of the Gospel all say "Artos" and not "Azymos". Artos specifically refers to leavened bread and Azymos specifically refers to unleavened bread (A=without, Zymos=enzyme). In fact, this is one of the main points of dialogue between the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic churches. We are requiring that they use leavened bread because they are using unleavened bread for the wrong reasons. Their reasoning behind it is that since Christ celebrated the passover with the disciples on the same night that he instituted the Eucharist, then there is no way that He could have found any leaven to make the bread with. However, we have to correct answer, and it is outside the scope of this topic to try to explain.
I don't know much about the Armenian Church. I do know that they use unleavened bread, and it has been that way since the very beginning even before the RC church started to use unleavened bread. In other words, the RC church at one point did use leavened bread. I THINK (only my opinion) the reason the Aremenians are allowed to use it is because they have some belief that leaven represents sin. The scriptures did say to get rid of the leaven of the pharisees. Anyways, I'm not too sure and I will be asking experts soon about this topic.
Now concerning Dialogues in general: Regardless of what the WCC website says, we know we may never reach Unity. Although it would be nice. However, I want to assure you we will NOT give up anything concerning the True Faith and Holy Tradition. By the way, once in one of Pope Shenouda's sermons on Wednesday, He was asked what is the current status on the dialogues between the churches and if any agreement has been reached. His answer was basically, what are we going to agree on? We will never agree with purgatory, or immaculate conception, or unleavened eucharist, or Sprinkling Batism, etc.... Also, We all know how firm Bishop Bishoy, one of the people that always presides over these dialogues, is and how strong his faith in our church is.
So be assured that the church is in good hands.
I think this is all I want to say.
Please pray for me.