› ›

Catholics- shocked!

Meena_AmeenMeena_Ameen
edited December 1969 in Faith Issues
I go to a catholic highschool and every once in a while a preist would come in and perform a mass in the gym. This one time i really paid attention to what the priest was doing. Like us the catholics believe that the bread and blood is actually converted into the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. But what I saw really shocked me. Everyone had finished taking the body and blood and now the preist was holding the rest of the blood and he drank it all infront of everyone...what shocked me was the immediatly after he drank it he took a little napkin and WIPPED the rest of the blood inside the cup. Without adding water to make sure he got every little bit of blood he just drank it and wipped it. In my mind I could not believe what I had just seen, all i could think about is "well what are they going to do with the napkin, surely some of the blood got absorbed onto it. Than i just saw him give the cup and the napkin to 2 of the alter servers and they walked away and the mass was finished.

Comments

  • Meena_AmeenMeena_Ameen
    I just wanted to know, isnt that a sin? I mean, they treated the blood of Jesus Christ as if it were nothing. In the coptic Church the priest makes sure there is nothing left in the cup by adding water however much times as he feels he needs to to make sure all the blood is gone and even than he washed the cup again and the deacons WITHOUT TOUCHING the cup use towels to dry the cup off.
  • jydeaconjydeacon
    i agree with you i don't think what the priest did was right and am completely shocked that a priest would actually do that
  • kokiiekokiie
    my mum told me that a long time ago she had to take abounas clothes home and wash them.. she used to throw the water she used on some plants. may be thats what they did ?
  • mikeforjesusmikeforjesus
    This might sound offensive to some.. but can't our priests just say a short prayer to God to turn the rest of the blood that they did not drink into normal wine again?

    when I eat some fruit with a seed and spit the fruit out of my mouth have I really done something wrong?
  • Unknown
    Now u know why the Catholics respect us!

    The only thing that the Coptic Church is missing is one of two things:
    a) a better microphone / speaker system
    b) more training for the choir(s) so they sing together.

    That's it basically. Every catholic i've spoken to LOVES to fool himself in thinking that they are so much like us. When i tell them that i'm Coptic Orthodox, they say :"..yes, yes,. we are all one Church, the Catholic and the Orthodox are the two lungs in the body of Christ".

    Not a fair analogy to be equal to a Church that disrespects spiritual tradition, and also the Holy Eucharist. Somewhere, we must get more browny points for being Coptic.. cos its just not fair to share Heaven with people that think adultary is OK so long as u don't feel bad about it....

  • GERALDINEGERALDINE
    My Friends,

    Just as a point In the Catholic Church thre only time I ever saw anyone ( other than the Priest)partaking of the Blood of Christ was the Bride and Groom on their wedding day!!!

    I was 20 odd years a Catholic and Never had the Blood of Christ


    Geraldine
  • Unknown
    In my Church in Paris, they always have the blood of Christ.

    However, what's strange is that the wafers which are distributed to the people DO NOT come from the big wafer the priest prays on in consecrating it to be the Holy Body.

    He prays on the small round wafers PLUS the big wafer (of which he and the other priests eat).

  • Meena_AmeenMeena_Ameen
    yeah i noticed that too vassilios, not only that but unlike the copts, the catholic priests also allow anyone to hand out the body of Christ, like parents or somtimes even teens. Im starting to think that the for them the actual conversion of bread to body and wine to blood doesnt really take place, even though they believe it does.
  • GERALDINEGERALDINE
    OOOh Yes - Lay "Ministers" give out Holy Communion!! and the congregation have the choice to take it direct on their tongue or actually in their hand for themselves to put it in their mouth. In fact my Mother gives out Holy Communion in Church in Ireland and also does the readings!!!!


    Words fail me actually !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Geraldine
  • GERALDINEGERALDINE
    Vassilos,
    Hi - Your experience in the French R.C Church must be a " French thing" !!!!! At least in Ireland it does not happen - no Blood is offered ever.

    Another reason to become Orthodox - don't u agree?

    God Bless

    Geraldine
  • godhelpme3691godhelpme3691
    Actually, I encountered something similar to this recently. Since the church I go to does not have a built Coptic Church yet, we rent a place in a Catholic Church. Once when we were setting up the altar (we would usually put our Coptic sheets and coverings over the Catholic altar), I noticed something strange on the Catholic altar…there was wine spilled all over the Catholic sheets! I asked one of our deacons whether it could have been ours, but that enormous amount most definitely could not have seeped through all the fabric we put over the Catholic altar, let alone out of the chalice itself. Weeks passed and every Sunday I would see that the blood was still there and finally concluded that the Catholics either forgot that the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ was spilled on the altar, or ignored the fact that it was even there. In my opinion, it looks like the Catholic Church has lost the meaning of "the holy Body, and the precious and true Blood of Jesus Christ.” I also think that because of this factor and many others, the Eucharist that the Catholics prepare is not really the true Eucharist our Lord intended it to be anymore. The Catholic Church prepares the Eucharist out of habit and without meaning, instead of preparing it with the love and respect that the Coptic Church handles it with. It is truly a shame that something like this regularly happens. Thank God for the Coptic Church.

    Please forgive me and pray for me,

    Godhelpme3691
  • karas7karas7
    everyone
    if this is waht u all see and realise the error why not remember them in prayer and hold fasts that they may come to the right path. doesnot neccssarily mean converting to orthodoxy. they can learn to hold fast these traditions again if their eyes open up. i kknow it wouldnt be our place to correct them but prayer and fasting is something we can definitely do and leave it to God to give us a chance to if it possible to present these these important church rites.

    please pray for each other and forgivness for ingorance of th foolish and weak.
  • heretic_Markheretic_Mark

    1. The Magisterium of Church teaches about real presence of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, in Holy Eucharist, so the liturgic rules are created as the consequence to this faith. Just read Vatican's documents about it, to know, what should be like the celebration of Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And if priests don't obey, it's not the fault of the Church, but of those priests. They have quite clear comandments.

    2. Vassilios - beware of the microphones! They just kill the sound on the liturgy! How I hate them! Churches should be built according to the rules of acoustics, like in the past, and that's all.

    3. Godhelpme3691 - situations like that one you have told us about are not Church's fault. Doctrine and liturgic rules are quite clear, as I told. But what particular priests do with it - it's another problem. I'm living in Poland and here there are no situations like this - but on the West, there are many ignorant, even heretic prisests, as I see. But what they do it's only their problem - their sins. Not Church's fault.

    4. Geraldine - we, Catholics, believe that even under one species is truly recieved whole and entire. That's why we don't recieve the Eucharist under the species of wine - the Church, with it's authority to teach the doctrine and institute the rules of administration of Sacraments, tells, that we recieve whole and entire Christ under species of bread.
  • akemnerakemner
    The lackadaisical treatment is symptomatic of the lack of faith in the holy Eucharist in the Latin Church (please remember that not all Catholics are Latins or Romans, and as a Greek Catholic, i have not seen such lack of respect among us). Catechesis is bad among them, especially in the West (North America and western Europe). Anyway, the priest should have consumed the rest of the Blood, then taken the chalice off to the side table and purified the vessel by pouring water into the chalice and then consuming that. Then he takes a white linen cloth, called a purificator, and wipes the chalices totally dry. The purificator should be always washed by hand, and the water poured into a bush (at worst) or into a special sink that goes into the ground. The stain on the altar cloth is an abuse, and is appalling.

    It is sad to see a general lack of respect for the our Lord's pure Body and Precious Blood, but we need to be an example to them, and when opportunites arise, we need to educate them as to proper respect for our King, Lord, and God. Many Latins just have no idea anymore.

    In Christ,
    Adam
  • heretic_Markheretic_Mark

    And that's what is the role of Eastern Catholics in this time - to show the Latin 'Catholics' (not Catholics, because Catholics actually believe in that; if not, they're not excomunicated, because of the anathemas of Council of Trent) that Christ is truly present in Holy Eucharist. To preach the Gospel to the pseudo-Catholics without using too many words. (Nota bene - not to Latin Church, because it believes in the doctrine of transsubstantiation, but to those, who think they are a part of Church, but in fact they're not.)
  • Child of ChristChild of Christ
    I sent this topic to a catholic friend of mine, and he asked me to paste his response on this forum as he is not registered:



    Kiro,

    It is difficult to know what to say to those people on the forum. I can understand, with such examples as these they have sited being set by the Catholic community, that the Orthodox find it easy to condemn the Catholic Church and believe themselves to be the one true Church, possessing the fullness of the truth. There are a few things that I would say to them however. One is about the difference between the natures of our churches.
    Because the Catholic Church has really taken on Christ's call to spread the Gospel to all four corners of the earth we have been necessarily more involved in the world and therefore have been more easily damaged or assisted by it, according to the times. The Orthodox Church sees such an attitude of vigorously taking out Christ and involving ourselves into the world as something of a heresy, to be avoided at all costs. But that is why they have remained confined to a relatively small area in Egypt, the Middle East etc. The Catholic Church however, and the Protestants who stemmed from them and who no matter how lacking they are in the true faith of Christ have kept some important parts of it, including the usually Catholic monopoly of bringing the good news to the world, have managed to spread the faith throughout the world and are enormously greater in amount of membership then the Orthodox faiths (though of course we cannot really judge success by numbers). The Orthodox Church however, by being super conservative i.e. retaining the language, music and liturgy from two centuries ago of the Copts or whatever region they are from, have almost entirely closed themselves off from the chance to spread the Gospel to any other people or culture in the world. This spirit of static conservation also has roots in their history, especially the Coptic Orthodox who through centuries of persecution have found it best to have such a policy of separation from the world merely in order to survive; something the Catholic Church has not needed because of its providential place in time and history.
    Now this Orthodox spirit of conservation has come with some important benefits of course. By being separate from the world, such problems as the world has experienced in terms of loss of faith etc. have little effected it internally. It is because of this that they can take the position of spiritual superiority as they witness some of the major problems the Catholic Church is now facing. One thing I would implore them to remember is that the actions of individuals, even many individuals in the Catholic Church does not nullify the pristine truth the Church still holds which we have received from Christ. After all, there have undoubtably been bad people and abuses in the history of the Coptic Orthodox Church, but you would agree that this does not mean that the Coptic Church does not posses the truths of Christianity. What abuses these Catholic people have been doing are exactly that, abuses, and are in complete contradiction to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Now why these abuses are continuing unchecked is another matter, and would take a long explanation of recent Church history. Let it be said that I do not believe they will continue for much longer, especially under the guidance of our holy and great new pope, Pope Benedict. The Church has suffered greatly in recent years from the loss of faith which the world has experienced, but I look with hope to a more solid future for us, and also hope that the Orthodox will there beside to help us to that future, and not abandon us when we need them the most.

    Put this up on that forum if you can Kiro.
    -Joseph

  • Unknown
    Your friend's response grossly misrepresents Orthodoxy. He states:

    The Orthodox Church sees such an attitude of vigorously taking out Christ and involving ourselves into the world as something of a heresy, to be avoided at all costs. But that is why they have remained confined to a relatively small area in Egypt, the Middle East etc.

    Rubbish. Orthodoxy has been established world-wide, without a doubt, and not to any not significant extent either. Our Church has even established entire Churches dedicated to missionary work e.g. the British Orthodox Church which caters to the British people.
  • Unknown
    [quote author=Child of Christ link=board=1;threadid=4528;start=15#msg62766 date=1162676107]
    Because the Catholic Church has really taken on Christ's call to spread the Gospel to all four corners of the earth


    Catholicism did not spread to the four corners of the world because it wished to "spread the Gospel." It is the product of Spanish, Portugese and French (among others) colonial efforts, which were purely political.

    That's not a citicism of Catholicism, but simply the reality of its worldwide presence.
  • Child of ChristChild of Christ
    Well, my friend joseph talked to another friend and these were his responses. I am the hard-headed copt he refers to ;) **Please note that this also refers to a number of other matters conflicting with our church**


    Brother, where do I begin?

    First, those comments about purifying the chalice. It's not a "napkin" as
    the web site suggests, but rather a purificator, and the priest or deacon
    purifies the chalice with water, then wiping it with the purificator... so
    yes, it is likely that some of the precious blood is on the purificator
    (just as it is in the Orthodox liturgy). After Mass, the purificators are
    put to be washed in a sacrarium, which is a special sink that empties into
    the ground. There is nothing scandalous about that, since you need to clean
    the cloth, and rather than having it go through the water system, it goes
    back into the earth directly. Similarly, if something is blessed and you
    want to get rid of it, the proper way to dispose of it is to burn it or bury
    it maybe, but not to throw it in the trash. I'm sure the Orthodox have the
    same guidelines. Now, the fact that people cleanse the chalice improperly
    and may break the rules is scandalous and I've seen it done, too, but does
    that suggest the Catholic Church is not the true Church? Are the Orthodox
    themselves spotless and without blemish? I think not. The Orthodox should
    be careful about throwing stones, since they live in a glass house. But
    more on that later.

    "...all this is meaningless to the Orthodox who have been perpetually and
    immovably grounded in the faith since its inception."

    well, I'm not so sure. The Coptics, of which your friend is a member, are
    historically considered heretics as far as I know, for holding on to the
    monophysite heresy. They never accepted the Council of Chalcedon, one of
    the early great ecumenical councils of the Church, which even the Greek and
    Russian Orthodox, and the Protestants accept. So the Coptics are even
    further off there.

    Furthermore, it sounds as if these people writing on the web site are guilty
    of another heresy: Donatism. Donatists (4th and 5th centuries) claimed that
    the validity and efficacy of the sacraments depended on the moral purity of
    the priest. During the Diocletian persecutions, many priests and bishops
    "handed over" the sacred vessels and sacred liturgical books to be burned or
    desecrated and renounced their faith. When the persecution was over, some
    repented, but the Donatists said that they would have to ordained again
    because of their great sin, and that their sacraments were invalid. They
    were called "traditors" (or traitors) because they "handed over" the sacred
    vessels and books (traditor comes from the Latin "to hand over"). St
    Augustine fought hard to combat this heresy.

    These Orthodox also sound frightening like the gnostic heretics of the
    middle ages, such as the Albigensians or the Cathari. They believed the
    true Church to be composed of only the illuminati and the pure.

    If the Church's earthly members were pure like these Orthodox want it to
    sound like, then there wouldn't be any need for the Church. The Church has
    always been beset with scandal and sin within her fold and it will be like
    that until Kingdom Come. Just read the Gospels and the Letters of St Paul
    to see how much crap the Church had to deal with from within even back then.
    So are the Orthodox willing to say that the Apostolic Church was not the
    true Church because of all the scandal? One of the Twelve even betrayed
    Jesus! Scandal of scandals! So, does that mean we cannot follow the
    remaining apostles because of this scandal?

    So, ya, there are plenty of abuses today in the Church, but there have been
    since day one. To desire to live in a Church and a world that is purified
    from any imperfection is a very dangerous thought... it's utopic, and anyone
    desiring that will always be bitter because it can never be attained. Or
    he'll become a totalitarian dictator, because that's the essence of what
    messianic political religions like Communism seek to attain, a purified
    society. Very dangerous stuff. Churchill said that the best is the enemy
    of the good. Meaning that if you impose the perfect on everyone, you will
    lose any good you had, you lose any middle ground that was there, because by
    imposing perfection - an impossible task - you scorch the earth and destroy
    everyone in your attempt to attain it.

    Finally, the Orthodox should clean their own house before pointing a finger
    at Catholics. Here are just a few things I have heard about their troubles
    (I am indebted to Dom Ambrose Bennett, O.S.B., for passing on this info
    about the current state of the Orthodox troubles...)

    The Ukrainian Orthodox and the Moscow Patriarchate are not in communion:
    some Ukrainians are pro-Moscow, others want their own patriarchate,
    resulting in schism (with rival claimants to the same sees).

    The monks of Mt. Athos condemn the Patriarch of Constantinope as a heretic
    and a schismatic for his conversations with the Roman Church and for other
    reasons, as well. So the monks have declared themselves out of communion
    with their Patriarch. The Athos monks and many other Greeks refuse to
    follow the Gregorian calendar, which has been accepted however by most
    Orthodox. A significant body of Greeks is militant about using the Julian
    calendar.

    The Greek Church has been racked with sex and money scandals lately, both
    in Greece and in the Holy Land, with allegations of money-laundering and
    (in Greece) of sordid sexual relationships involving aged bishops. In the
    Holy Land, there is major contention between the ethnic Greek bishops and
    the Palestinian parish priests and faithful (the Palestinians say their
    Greek bishops have sold Palestinian land to Israelis, etc.).

    In the U.S., the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of North and South America
    (Spyridon, I think was his name) was forced to resign because many priests
    and laity regarded him as too authoritarian. Many parishes refused to
    contribute any more money, thus precipitating a financial crisis.

    American Orthodoxy is a chaos of conflicting Orthodox jurisdictions:
    Russian, Greek, Antiochian, Romanian, Serbian, etc., with significant
    schisms due to the long communist domination of their mother churches in
    Eastern Europe.

    In Russia, many ugly revelations have come out about
    communist-collaborationist Orthodox clergy and bishops, including many who
    were KGB agents and infiltrated seminaries and such. Granted, many priests
    conformed to the communist state because they had to. But some did so to
    gain advantages or money from the communist regime. Solzhenitsyn wrote a
    famous letter to the Moscow Patriarch, decrying this situation, and
    unfavorably comparing the subservience of most of the Russian clergy with
    the anti-communist resistance of the Polish clergy.

    The Serbian Orthodox clergy seemed to have blessed and supported
    Milosevicz in the name of Serb nationalism. So it's not obvious that
    Orthodox priests in Orthodox lands are particularly exemplary in their
    public stances. Nationalism seems to be the main value.

    And, by the way, to the extent that the late Pope contributed to the
    demise of Soviet communism, he also helped the Orthodox become free of
    this terrible oppression and persecution. Even if they can't accept papal
    primacy or infallibility, one might expect a word of acknowledgment and
    even gratitude from those Orthodox who benefited from the end of Soviet
    rule.

    LAST BUT NOT LEAST, in discussing things with your Copt friend: the
    hard-shell
    Greeks and Russians consider the Copts to be Monophysite heretics. At any
    rate, the Egyptian Church refused acceptance to the Council of Chalcedon,
    which the Greeks and Russians consider absolutely non-negotiable. So why
    should a Copt idealize the Byzantine Russians and Greeks, any more than
    the Romans?

    As for American Orthodox politicians: Greek Americans like the late
    Senator Sarbanes and also Michael Dukakis were adamant abortion
    supporters, in complete contradiction to their own Church's teaching, and
    with very little direct criticism from the Greek Orthodox archbishop,
    thanks to ethnic pride.

    As for the sex abuse: the Orthodox in the U.S. are a tiny minority. Of course
    they have less sex abuse: there aren't very many of them. If one were to
    scrutinize the Orthodox clergy of Greece or Russia in this way, I think we
    would find a similar proportion of sexual abuse and scandals. It's just
    that things like this don't generally become public knowledge in Orthodox
    countries, just as they used to be hushed up in the U.S., too.

    Hope this helps.
    Bacardi

    And the second email regarding the posts of iqbal and orthodox11

    "Joseph,

    The responses to your post were lame. First of all, yes, Eastern Orthodoxy
    has spread to all four corners of the globe, but that's because of native
    emigration... that is, most of the members of these Eastern Orthodox
    Churches all over the world are ethnic Greek or Russian or Egyptian... etc,
    in other words, they haven't done as much evangelizing to people outside
    their ethnicity. It has remained more racially based than the Catholic
    Church. Go to China... you'll see a lot of Chinese Roman Catholics, but not
    a lot of Chinese Russian Orthodox. Go to Peru. You'll see a lot of
    Peruvian Roman Catholics, but not a lot of Peruvian Greek Orthodox. In
    other words, most Latin Catholics are not even Latin (Roman). So it truly
    has been a spreading of the Gospel to the Gentiles outside the fold.
    Whereas, most Russian Orthodox are... Russian, wherever in the world they
    might be.

    Secondly, one guy on there was falling for the classical myth of the Black
    Legend. Suffice it to say that Spanish colonization on the New World did
    bring Catholicism, and it wasn't solely for political purposes as that guy
    said. What about Francisco de Vitoria? What about Bartolomeo de las Casas?
    Charles V specifically asked the Theological faculty of Salamanca for advice
    and asked these theologians to study the case of colonization and the status
    and rights of the Indians. He was concerned above all about religion. And
    so was Philip II. To be sure, the interests of the Church and the State
    served each other's needs, but you can't totally subordinate the Church as
    the State's lackey. If that were the case, then how do you account for the
    many times where the Church in the New World stood up for religion and for
    the native peoples, AGAINST the mother country in some cases. The Church
    most of the time sided with true religion and with the natives.

    And yes, if you think it would help, you can send portions of that email to
    your friend. Is he like those people on the web site? Or is he more open?
    I remember you talking about a Greek Orthodox friend you have... is this the
    same guy or different?

    You know what, just forget about being diplomatic. Simply tell him: "You
    should thank your lucky stars that you're not living in the 13th century,
    because your heretic ass would be in flames right about now."

    Eh, maybe not, that might not work. On second thought, use the diplomacy.
    lol.
    -Bacadi"

    Have fun.
  • Unknown
    Child of Christ,

    Seriously, don’t post anymore of your friend’s responses unless he is willing to come onto this website and post himself, okay? We can’t keep dialoguing through a mediator (i.e. yourself); that’s just ridiculous.

    The Coptics, of which your friend is a member, are
    historically considered heretics as far as I know, for holding on to the
    monophysite heresy.

    What kind of stupid argument is that? And the Roman Catholics, of which your friend is a member, are historically considered heretics for holding on to the Nestorian heresy.

    Instead of observing historical polemics, how about your friend give evidence that we actually ever were heretics and that we actually ever did hold on to a “monophysite heresy”.

    They never accepted the Council of Chalcedon, one of
    the early great ecumenical councils of the Church, which even the Greek and
    Russian Orthodox, and the Protestants accept.

    Because the Council of Chalcedon is not “one of the early great ecumenical councils”. That’s certainly not what he may believe, but for him to presume his belief to be standard truth and to then draw conclusions flowing from that presumed belief, concerning us, whilst posing those conclusions to one of us to accept, is utter absurdity.

    Furthermore, it sounds as if these people writing on the web site are guilty
    of another heresy: Donatism. Donatists (4th and 5th centuries) claimed that
    the validity and efficacy of the sacraments depended on the moral purity of
    the priest.

    That sounds like some wild reading into some of the comments made. If anyone has suggested any relationship between the “invalidity” of Catholic Sacraments and the corrupt practices of Catholic priests, it regards the latter being a symptom of the former, not the former being a cause of the latter. In any event, I have not found anyone making any such statement to the effect your friend presumes. Donatism is explicitly repudiated in Coptic theological works.

    These Orthodox also sound frightening like the gnostic heretics of the
    middle ages, such as the Albigensians or the Cathari. They believed the
    true Church to be composed of only the illuminati and the pure.

    Your friend is really desperate now. See comment above. Additionally, I see no-one here speaking about the moral purity of clergy; they are discussing abusive Liturgical praxis within the RCC. I can provide a whole list of such abusive Liturgical praxis; the problem is that such abuses are not random slip-ups, but they occur commonly within the RCC. I wander if your friend has heard of the famous “clown mass”. The problem is not human weakness, it is a problem sourced in the RCC’s liberalism and its disregard for the maintenance of Church Tradition.

    Finally, the Orthodox should clean their own house before pointing a finger
    at Catholics.

    He goes on to list a range of issues pertinent to the Eastern Orthodox Church which have absolutely nothing to do with us (the Coptic Orthodox Church of the Oriental Orthodox Communion). I would attempt to respond on behalf of our EO brothers nonetheless but I am simply not learned enough in the various issues of their religious and political history and praxis that your friend attempts to use as examples to make his case.

    LAST BUT NOT LEAST, in discussing things with your Copt friend: the
    hard-shell Greeks and Russians consider the Copts to be Monophysite heretics.

    What, for the life of me, does observing the polemics of one against another, prove against that other? He refers to the outside perception of us by “hard-shell Greeks and Russians”. Allow me to bring to his attention the fact that the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria (i.e. we are now speaking of actual authorities of the Greek Church—the Synod of Alexandria) has formally acknowledged the Orthodoxy of our Church, as have many other Synods within the EO Communion. Furthermore, many professors and theologians, particularly of the Russian Orthodox Church, have also reached that conclusion.

    Nevertheless, the issue of concern here is not a) what do people think we believe, but rather b) what do we actually believe. So unless your friend can prove us to be “Monophysite heretics” (a thing which his Church, pursuant to the signed agreement between H.H. Pope Shenouda III and Pope John Paul II, denies), then he has no real case against us.
  • Child of ChristChild of Christ
    Iqbal, could I ask a favor of you?

    Could you please take ALL the topics discussed by our dear friend Barcardi and either defend/agree with him? I have had complaints that you only take certain amounts of the text and comment on them... and thats fine...

    Except, this topic has really become fragile and I think it would benefit me, as well as the local coptic and catholic community, if you could perhaps clear up all of the issues discussed. Also, if possible, could you please cite sources? I know this is asking alot, but I just want to end this bickering once and for all with a good, hard, solid piece of literature written by the Great Iqbal.

    Thanks :)
  • Unknown

    Could you please take ALL the topics discussed by our dear friend Barcardi and either defend/agree with him? I have had complaints that you only take certain amounts of the text and comment on them... and thats fine...

    I have responded to everything relevant to the Coptic Orthodox Church. A great number of his comments have nothing to do with us, and do not relate to anything I've said.

    If he wants to accuse me of evading any relevant argument let him come on here and point out which one.

    Also, if possible, could you please cite sources?

    Cite sources for what? If I have made an assertion of fact that he feels the need for me to validate with appeal to other sources, let him come on and point that out too.
Sign In or Register to comment.