› ›

link

hbjameenhbjameen
edited December 1969 in Non-Orthodox Inquiries
can someonhe please send me a link to a topic on the difference between catholics and us

thanks need it befor tomorow

Comments

  • KBibo8KBibo8
    Here you go.

    http://www.stmark-la.com/book.html
  • Unknown
    [quote author=KBibo8 link=board=12;threadid=3997;start=0#msg56093 date=1149822486]
    Here you go.

    http://www.stmark-la.com/book.html


    "The year 1054 marks one of the tragedies in the history of the Church of Christ. It was the time when the venerable Church of Rome separated from the one, Holy, catholic and apostolic church..." - Father Markos Hannah

    I as a member of the Patriarchate of Constantinople would certainly agree with the above statement, but I am astounded that a Coptic Orthodox priest can write such a thing.

    The schism between Rome and the Coptic Church is not dated to 1054 but to 451 when Pope Dioscoros of Alexandria excommunicated Pope Leo of Rome because of the latter's friendliness with the heretic Theodoret of Cyrus, and his refusal to accept his condemnation by the Council of Ephesus in 449 (something the Fathers at Chalcedon did do until Theodoret finally declared Nestorius a heretic).

    1054, on the other hand, marks the date when the Pope of Rome (or rather, his delegate, since the Pope was in fact dead) excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. In 1054 both Rome and Constantinople had not been in communion with the Coptic Church for 600 years, so I'm not sure what Fr. Markos was suggesting with this statement.
  • Unknown
    Orthodox11,

    I wouldn't read too much into it. An unfortunate yet sad truth is the apparent lack of education/scholarship in the Coptic Church, even amongst her clergy. Piety seems to be the primary and exclusive agenda and goal of most Copts (myself excluded). Consequently, there is often blatant ignorance or a reductionist miscomprehension of the division between our Churches at 451 A.D.

    My educated guess is that Fr. Hanna simply read a secondary text on the 11th century schism which probably referred to the Eastern Orthodox Church with the unqualified "Orthodox Church", and that he consequently just innocently assumed that such was a reference to the Oriental Orthodox Church. Most Copts have probably never heard of the title "Oriental Orthodox", and simply know themselves to be part of "the Orthodox Church". The obvious reason for this is that the OO title only really serves any purpose or use in ecumenical discussions.
  • Unknown
    [quote author=Iqbal link=board=12;threadid=3997;start=0#msg56100 date=1149851696]
    Orthodox11,

    I wouldn't read too much into it. An unfortunate yet sad truth is the apparent lack of education/scholarship in the Coptic Church, even amongst her clergy. Piety seems to be the primary and exclusive agenda and goal of most Copts (myself excluded). Consequently, there is often blatant ignorance or a reductionist miscomprehension of the division between our Churches at 451 A.D.

    My educated guess is that Fr. Hanna simply read a secondary text on the 11th century schism which probably referred to the Eastern Orthodox Church with the unqualified "Orthodox Church", and that he consequently just innocently assumed that such was a reference to the Oriental Orthodox Church.

    The thing I don't understand is that Fr. Hanna discusses the different in expressions of Christology that led partly to the schism in 451, he aknowledges that the "Coptic Orthodox Church was not represented in any of the above mentioned councils" (Chalcedon to II Nicea), he also talks about persecution of Copts for two centuries "by their western Christian brothers for renouncing the council of Chalcedon, from 451 AD till 641 AD" - so how then can he be ignorant of the fact that the schism between Rome and the Copts did not happen in 1054 but in 541?

    I'm sure an acomplished scholar like H.H. Pope Shenouda would be pretty horrified at this book, which states that it is "a fruit of: His Holiness Pope Shenouda III’s teachings."


    Most Copts have probably never heard of the title "Oriental Orthodox", and simply know themselves to be part of "the Orthodox Church". The obvious reason for this is that the OO title only really serves any purpose or use in ecumenical discussions.

    This I understand. I have yet to meet an Eastern Orthodox person who refers to him/herself as such unless it is in the context of ecumenical dialogue.

    What makes it even more confusing is the fact that Eastern and Oriental is the same word ??? I guess we'll just have to live with it ;)
  • Unknown

    The thing I don't understand is that Fr. Hanna discusses the different in expressions of Christology that led partly to the schism in 451

    I think the problem is his interpretation of the schism. He implicitly indicates that the division was not the result of diverging Christological faiths, but rather mere semantics and politics. As such he probably undermines the very implications of the schism itself.

    According to proper ecclesiology, the very existence of a schism has grave ecclesiological implications regardless of whether the schism was promoted by actual or just apparent doctrinal conflict. He probably either fails to realise, or consciously rejects this understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology.
  • KBibo8KBibo8
    Calm down guys. It is a simple mistake. THe next edition of the book which is not online has had this introduction corrected.
  • Unknown
    [quote author=KBibo8 link=board=12;threadid=3997;start=0#msg56148 date=1149941147]
    Calm down guys.

    I don't think this comment was necessary. Orthodox11 and I are having a reasonable discussion on an issue significant enough to warrant such a discussion in the first place.

    It is a simple mistake.

    I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "simple", but if you are implying that it is trivial, it most certainly isn't. It is a most significant mistake.

    THe next edition of the book which is not online has had this ntroduction corrected.

    Where can this edition be found? I have not heard of it.
  • KBibo8KBibo8
    I am sorry if I offended you. No I do not believe that the matter is in anyway trivial. By simple I meant that although it is a major error, it does not necessarily imply ignorance on Fr. Markos' part, especially since it was later changed. It is important to have our facts straight and errors such as this can lead others to think that we as a Church are ignorant of our faith. I have read a few books written by Coptic clergy that I have found to have unorthodox statements in them. However, from what I remember from when I read this book, is that it is a decent portrayal of the differences between our churches. You may find a few other flaws. If you do please let me know. It is a sad fact, but we often need to be careful becuase some of the new books do have mistake.

    Where can this edition be found? I have not heard of it.

    I have only seen it in print. I believe it is the third edition. If you contact that church's bookstore you should be able to get it.

    Again, far be it from me to trivialize important matters in Church history and theology.

    I think the problem is his interpretation of the schism. He implicitly indicates that the division was not the result of diverging Christological faiths, but rather mere semantics and politics. As such he probably undermines the very implications of the schism itself.

    I think that Fr. Markos in his attempt to briefly discuss the schism has fallen into the trap of oversimplification. Many readers are turned off by long polemical (is that even a word?) discussions of the Council of Chalcedon. Since this was not the focus of this work, I believe the writer wanted to write a brief discussion and by doing ignored the implications of the schism itself
  • Unknown
    [quote author=Iqbal link=board=12;threadid=3997;start=0#msg56147 date=1149939555]

    The thing I don't understand is that Fr. Hanna discusses the different in expressions of Christology that led partly to the schism in 451

    I think the problem is his interpretation of the schism. He implicitly indicates that the division was not the result of diverging Christological faiths, but rather mere semantics and politics. As such he probably undermines the very implications of the schism itself.


    Given the fact that inter-orthodox dialogue has shown that the two Churches do in fact share the same Christology (the difference being in how it is expressed) I can understand why he might think like this, but, as you say:


    According to proper ecclesiology, the very existence of a schism has grave ecclesiological implications regardless of whether the schism was promoted by actual or just apparent doctrinal conflict.


    He probably either fails to realise, or consciously rejects this understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology.

    My guess is the second one. It is no doubt a symptom of the Ecumenist disease that seems to have infected both our churches.

    I also wanted to ask you about the joint decleration regarding the lifting of anathemas. From what I read in the declaration it seemed like lifting the anathemas would be sufficient to restore communion.

    I found this to be a rediculous proposal - surely there cannot be unity when the two sides recognise a differing number of Ecumenical Councils, regardless of whether Popes Leo and Dioscoros are exhonerated.

    Or have I misunderstood the proposal?
  • Unknown

    From what I read in the declaration it seemed like lifting the anathemas would be sufficient to restore communion.

    I don't have time to go through them now, but I was never under this impression. The lifting of anathemas would be necessary, yes, but sufficient, no.

    I found this to be a rediculous proposal - surely there cannot be unity when the two sides recognise a differing number of Ecumenical Councils, regardless of whether Popes Leo and Dioscoros are exhonerated.

    I agree, and as far as I know, neither side is prepared to compromise on this matter (though it doesn't seem to be explicitly discussed in the actual official dialogues).

    H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy (or H.H. Pope Shenouda III - my memory is a little hazy) has, I believe, indicated in one of his articles, that the Church is willing to acknowledge Chalcedon et al as mere local Councils of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, given the understanding that they can be interpreted within the framework of Miaphysite Orthodoxy. On the other hand, Patriarch Bartholomew has indicated, in an audio interview with a representative of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Northen America, that the OO Church needs to accept all seven Councils of the EOC as Ecumenical.
  • Unknown


    H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy (or H.H. Pope Shenouda III - my memory is a little hazy) has, I believe, indicated in one of his articles, that the Church is willing to acknowledge Chalcedon et al as mere local Councils of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, given the understanding that they can be interpreted within the framework of Miaphysite Orthodoxy.

    That's interesting, I was not aware of this.

    Hypothetically speaking, if the OO accepted the 4 Councils as local, interpreting them "within the framework of Miaphysite Orthodoxy," could one not take it a step further and say that, although the OO was not represented in these Councils, by virtue of them having been accepted by the OO later on, that they can now be considered Ecumenical?

    Rome, for example, did not accept Chalcedon as Ecumenical until centuries later, so in principle cannot the same thing take place here?

    Or do you think would be an unworkable solution?

    I really appreciate your opinions on this matter - I'm learning a lot.


    On the other hand, Patriarch Bartholomew has indicated, in an audio interview with a representative of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Northen America, that the OO Church needs to accept all seven Councils of the EOC as Ecumenical.

    I also think that in order for a more than superficial unity to be restored, the two churches cannot differ in the number of Councils they hold to be Ecumenical.

    Personally I would be in favour of an 8th Ecumenical Council in which the 15EO and 6OO churches were represented, which would uphold the previous 7 councils, but interpret them in a way acceptable to both sides.

    With regards to administration, no change would have to be made in respect to Ethiopia, Eritrea, Armenia and India on the one side, and Constantnople, Moscow, Georgia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Athens, Albania, Poland and Czech Lands & Slovakia.

    With regards to Alexandria I would be in favour of the Coptic and Melkite Synods joining, and electing a single Patriarch (and for the latter to return to the Old Calendar, which is followed by most of the EO). Coptic, Greek and Arabic bishops would be allocated according to the demographic makeup of the various areas - rites and traditions of the local churches would be kept as they are.

    A similar solution would also be applicable to Antioch.

    Jerusalem would be more complicated since there already exists a situation of overlapping jurisdictions within the OOC in this place - Armenians, Copts and Syrians having different Archbishops. Given the make-up of faithful in the Holy Land, I would have thought it most appropriate to intigrate these three into the current EO Patriarchate, though the large Armenian presence must be taken into account in this.

    With regards to America and western Europe, both our churches suffer from an uncanonical situation of overlapping jurisdictions caused by immigration, and so this is more difficult to resolve. Though such a situation would not be an obsticle to eucharistic unity. Given the fact that the OCA is self-governing with its own Metropolitan, I would have thought this would be the key to unity within America.

    Of course, merging synods, etc would not happen overnight but gradually.

    This seems to me to be the most workable solution anyways.

    What are your thoughts on an 8th (4th) Council?
Sign In or Register to comment.