Coptic Christians

[Javl]

I’m on brother Ciero’s side.

Blessings

Very good. He needs help. But, I’m still waiting for “brother” Ciero’s ( or your ) “truth” for the split. Thank you.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[ciero]

Very good. He needs help. But, I’m still waiting for “brother” Ciero’s ( or your ) “truth” for the split. Thank you.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Sorry not going to do your homework for you! You can do a very simple Internet search to find out that the schism had little to do with papal authority, as you claim.

Maybe getting your head out of that traditionalist propaganda might help

 

[Javl]

Sorry not going to do your homework for you! You can do a very simple Internet search to find out that the schism had little to do with papal authority, as you claim.

Maybe getting your head out of that traditionalist propaganda might help

Thank you, you are so kind to let me do my own home work, while you sit so smug in your own little world. Of course, your answer/remarks tell me that you are so fixated on your own “propaganda” that you really don’t know the real reason/truth!.

Try again little brother, you may get it right yet.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Hesychios]

… Catholic side says the orthodox broke away from the church, and the orthodox side says the Catholic broke away from the church. And both have vaid reasons for this.
Which is the true one

There was an evolving ecclesiology in the west. More and more the particular churches in the west (the old Metropolitan Sees) were being pulled into the orbit of control of the Pope.

I think it is fair to say that due to many of the problems the church was having with civil authorities in the west (namely, kings and nobles who dominated the church in their areas) a lot of people looked at strengthening the office of the bishop of Rome to counterbalance that severe problem. (For more information you might want to read up on the investiture controversy, a particularly western problem.)

You will notice that the break between the east and the west seems to have reached a climax during the Gregorian reforms. It was an era full of challenges and big adjustments for the western church. The reformers were trying to extend this new network of control into the eastern churches, and there was a clash with the traditional church authority there.

Now to be sure there were already points of contention between the Greek Catholics and the Roman Catholics, most notably the church in the city of Rome had started to recite the filioque in the Mass … after several hundred years of Papal opposition there were finally Popes who were willing to use it. This resulted in the bishop of Rome being stricken from the dyptichs in the eastern patriarchal cathedrals. (In the dyptichs of patriarchal cathedrals each patriarch would commemorate the brother patriarchs, a sort of remembrance and salutation. The patriarch at Rome would of course be part of this custom, commemorating the other patriarchs during Mass as they commemorated him.) This striking from the dyptichs was not an excommunication (the churches still shared communion) but it was an expression of displeasure, an admonition for the See at Rome to correct itself. I don’t actually recall what year that had started, perhaps around 1005AD or so.

[As far as I can tell I don’t think the east was aware of the dogma of Purgatory yet, it does not seem to have been a western teaching until much later, so the filioque would more than likely be the single most significant theological issue. And as I stated, there was no break at the time, just an admonition.]

Then there was a mission of Cardinals to Constantinople in the years 1054AD, which actually had several aims, mostly political in nature. (For one thing the Pope was hoping for a military alliance with the Byzantine emperor against the Normans in southern Italy.)

During the mission, the Pope died, and the See at Rome was vacant. It was at this time that the head of the diplomatic mission tried to coerce the Eastern Catholic patriarch at Constantinople into conforming to with some of their aims, and threatened to excommunicate him (probably with the hope of having him driven out by the emperor and replaced with someone more agreeable). The text of his Bull of excommunication is available and has been posted at CAF a few times. The synod of the eastern church at Constantinople responded by excommunicating the Cardinals (Humbert and Frederic), but not the entire western church, and not any Pope.

So it was at this point, when the Gregorian reformers were becoming more active trying to strengthen the office of the Papacy, that a conflict with the patriarch at Constantinople arose.

For their part, the eastern churches didn’t actually change anything. They continued to function as they had before. There wasn’rt even a concious aim to “leave obedience” to the Pope, since the Pope did not actually have any control over the churches in the east.

I am sure they would be surprised to learn that people today are speculating on them “breaking away” from the Papacy. They did not report to the Pope as a boss or superior, they controled their own churches and did not deliberately provoke a schism, the provocation came from some Cardinal/emmisaries from the west acting without authority.

 

[ciero]

Thank you, you are so kind to let me do my own home work, while you sit so smug in your own little world. Of course, your answer/remarks tell me that you are so fixated on your own “propaganda” that you really don’t know the real reason/truth!.

Try again little brother, you may get it right yet.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

You might be interested in Hesychios’ post…it will probably clear up some of your misconceptions.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

There was an evolving ecclesiology in the west. More and more the particular churches in the west (the old Metropolitan Sees) were being pulled into the orbit of control of the Pope.

I think it is fair to say that due to many of the problems the church was having with civil authorities in the west (namely, kings and nobles who dominated the church in their areas) a lot of people looked at strengthening the office of the bishop of Rome to counterbalance that severe problem. (For more information you might want to read up on the investiture controversy, a particularly western problem.)

You will notice that the break between the east and the west seems to have reached a climax during the Gregorian reforms. It was an era full of challenges and big adjustments for the western church. The reformers were trying to extend this new network of control into the eastern churches, and there was a clash with the traditional church authority there.

Now to be sure there were already points of contention between the Greek Catholics and the Roman Catholics, most notably the church in the city of Rome had started to recite the filioque in the Mass … after several hundred years of Papal opposition there were finally Popes who were willing to use it. This resulted in the bishop of Rome being stricken from the dyptichs in the eastern patriarchal cathedrals. (In the dyptichs of patriarchal cathedrals each patriarch would commemorate the brother patriarchs, a sort of remembrance and salutation. The patriarch at Rome would of course be part of this custom, commemorating the other patriarchs during Mass as they commemorated him.) This striking from the dyptichs was not an excommunication (the churches still shared communion) but it was an expression of displeasure, an admonition for the See at Rome to correct itself. I don’t actually recall what year that had started, perhaps around 1005AD or so.

[As far as I can tell I don’t think the east was aware of the dogma of Purgatory yet, it does not seem to have been a western teaching until much later, so the filioque would more than likely be the single most significant theological issue. And as I stated, there was no break at the time, just an admonition.]

Then there was a mission of Cardinals to Constantinople in the years 1054AD, which actually had several aims, mostly political in nature. (For one thing the Pope was hoping for a military alliance with the Byzantine emperor against the Normans in southern Italy.)

During the mission, the Pope died, and the See at Rome was vacant. It was at this time that the head of the diplomatic mission tried to coerce the Eastern Catholic patriarch at Constantinople into conforming to with some of their aims, and threatened to excommunicate him (probably with the hope of having him driven out by the emperor and replaced with someone more agreeable). The text of his Bull of excommunication is available and has been posted at CAF a few times. The synod of the eastern church at Constantinople responded by excommunicating the Cardinals (Humbert and Frederic), but not the entire western church, and not any Pope.

So it was at this point, when the Gregorian reformers were becoming more active trying to strengthen the office of the Papacy, that a conflict with the patriarch at Constantinople arose.

For their part, the eastern churches didn’t actually change anything. They continued to function as they had before. There wasn’rt even a concious aim to “leave obedience” to the Pope, since the Pope did not actually have any control over the churches in the east.

I am sure they would be surprised to learn that people today are speculating on them “breaking away” from the Papacy. They did not report to the Pope as a boss or superior, they controled their own churches and did not deliberately provoke a schism, the provocation came from some Cardinal/emmisaries from the west acting without authority.

Well, this Eastern Catholic agrees fully with your excellent analysis!!

Alex

 

[Fr_Kyrillos]

Dear Friends,

There was a wonderful joint statement made between Pope Paul VI and Pope Shenouda III on a common confession of Christology. While the document acknowledges outstanding differences in other areas, there is much to celebrate in our common faith:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19730510_copti_en.html

The pertinent part on Christology reads:

In accordance with our apostolic traditions transmitted to our Churches and preserved therein, and in conformity with the early three ecumenical councils, we confess one faith in the One Triune God, the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Word of God, the effulgence of His glory and the express image of His substance, who for us was incarnate, assuming for Himself a real body with a rational soul, and who shared with us our humanity but without sin. We confess that our Lord and God and Saviour and King of us all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God with respect to His Divinity, perfect man with respect to His humanity. In Him His divinity is united with His humanity in a real, perfect union without mingling, without commixtion, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation. His divinity did not separate from His humanity for an instant, not for the twinkling of an eye. He who is God eternal and invisible became visible in the flesh, and took upon Himself the form of a servant. In Him are preserved all the properties of the divinity and all the properties of the humanity, together in a real, perfect, indivisible and inseparable union.

God bless,
Fr. Kyrillos

 

[JohnVIII]

Your answer that this schism is due to papal primacy is EXTREMELY simplistic! And also from a triumphalistic Roman Catholic viewpoint. Maybe you should do a bit more homework.

Papal supremacy is not the same as Roman primacy. And if we both have the true Body and Blood of Christ we cannot be in true schism. But I do think that we act like we are in schism today mainly because of misunderstandings over supremacy/primacy issues by RC’s and EO’s alike. The OO on the other hand seem to get it.

Remember, there’s no guarantee that the Pope speaks infallibly when he speaks only to Rome. When St Peter speaks through the Pope he speaks to the whole Church. Now if it so happens that St Peter speaks but Rome does not hear, yet it happens that the Copt’s do hear, then where do you look to in order to see the unity of the Church?

When a true marriage seems to end in a legal divorce, there are in reality, still married. Schism is legal divorce and the church still remains in reality married to Christ. No man has the power to divide what God has made one. If the Pope speaks to the whole Church today that would include the EO and the OO as well as the RC and the EC.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Kyrillos,

A most hearty welcome! I am utterly humbled by your presence here. Thank you for your contributions so far , and I am eager to see your comments in other threads.

If you have the time, could you please look at this thread - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=498175. If you can spare any wisdom, I would apprecite your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Your son in Christ,
Marduk

Dear Friends,

There was a wonderful joint statement made between Pope Paul VI and Pope Shenouda III on a common confession of Christology. While the document acknowledges outstanding differences in other areas, there is much to celebrate in our common faith:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19730510_copti_en.html

The pertinent part on Christology reads:

God bless,
Fr. Kyrillos

 

[Fr_Kyrillos]

Dearest Father Kyrillos,

A most hearty welcome! I am utterly humbled by your presence here. Thank you for your contributions so far , and I am eager to see your comments in other threads.

If you have the time, could you please look at this thread - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=498175. If you can spare any wisdom, I would apprecite your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Your son in Christ,
Marduk

Thank you for the kindness Marduk! I attempted to make a contribution as you requested. I hope it adds something positive to the discussion.

God bless,
Fr. Kyrillos