BWAHAHAHAHA! Have you ever heard of Byzantium? They were the world power long after Rome fell and was a Byzantine vassal until the Holy Roman Empire came to be. The Orthodox church was the head church during that time.
Evolved yes. The Copts were formerly the Alexandrian church, along with Byzantium, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome. They weren’t called Roman Catholics or Latins either, but obviously the different churches ‘evolved’ into those distinct sects once Rome fell.
You also seem to forget the Orthodox-Latin split in the early part of last millenium. Are the Orthodox heretics too? There have been many church splits over the millenium, it’s not like the Protestants are the first. Your delusion that ‘the Catholic church has judged’ is more Latin delusion.
The Copts nor the Orthodox nor the Syriacs hold Rome as the head of the church. In fact in the original councils, if anything Byzantium was considered the head, but emphasis was always placed on the equality of each of the head churches.
Your ‘TRUTH’ is nothing but usual Latin headstrong arrogance wrapped in delusion. You are completely ignorant of church history.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
You wrote:
“BWAHAHAHAHA! Have you ever heard of Byzantium? They were the world power long after Rome fell and was a Byzantine vassal until the Holy Roman Empire came to be. The Orthodox church was the head church during that time.”
False. The Eastern Orthodox churches themselves teach that the Copts formed a separate, distinct and clearly heretical and schismatic Coptic Church. In other words, your own point works against you.
“Evolved yes. The Copts were formerly the Alexandrian church, along with Byzantium, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome. They weren’t called Roman Catholics or Latins either, but obviously the different churches ‘evolved’ into those distinct sects once Rome fell.”
“formerly”? That shows they changed. What they did was adopt heresy and schism. Again, you’re proving my point for me. I don’t mind that you keep undermining your own claims.
“You also seem to forget the Orthodox-Latin split in the early part of last millenium. Are the Orthodox heretics too?”
Nope. It is just irrelevant since even the Byzantines regarded the Copts as heretical and schismatic.
“There have been many church splits over the millenium, it’s not like the Protestants are the first.”
Which I never claimed. Are you going to insinuate other things I’ve never claimed or believed?
“Your delusion that ‘the Catholic church has judged’ is more Latin delusion.”
No, it’s just a fact. And, as I demonstrated, there are Eastern Orthodox prelates who come to realize that even today.
“The Copts nor the Orthodox nor the Syriacs hold Rome as the head of the church.”
False. The Orthodox recognize the historical primacy of the Roman Church. The argument is over exactly what that means and the Orthodox, of course, can’t get their own act together to agree on what that means. Hence, the actual need for exactly some sort of Roman primacy. If you read Maged Attia’s The Coptic Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement you’ll see that the Copts struggle with these issues because they must keep up the idea of a local, regional (or ethnic!) primacy or else their raison d’etre disappears.
“In fact in the original councils, if anything Byzantium was considered the head, but emphasis was always placed on the equality of each of the head churches.”
False. Read Margherita Guarducci’s The Primacy of the Church of Rome: Documents, Reflections, Proofs and you’ll think differently.
“Your ‘TRUTH’ is nothing but usual Latin headstrong arrogance wrapped in delusion. You are completely ignorant of church history.”
Actually I have a PhD in History and Church History was my focus. I see nothing in your posts that lead me to conclude you’re anything but a sciolist on the subject.
You consistently provide no evidence for your claims. Why is that?
Sorry, historically you are incorrect.
What we call the Byzantine Empire was called by the people who lived through it and by the Greeks today as "The Roman Empire" -- they were a continuation of the Roman Empire and the citizens called themselves Romaoi -- Romans
Their language may have become Greek and their dress too, but they considered themselves right until the fall of Constantinople as Romans -- hence the Turks called their 12th century kingdom in the south of Anatolia as the Sultanate of the Rum -- "Rum" being the Turkic pronunciation of Rome
"Rome was a Byzantine vassal" -- that's illogical -- as I said, Byzantine is what we Westerners call it, to the Byzantinians they were the Romans just taking back the eternal city from the barbarian Germanics
What did happen was that the Roman Empire was divided into West and East and even after the West lost its Roman Imperators, it was considered part of the overall Roman Empire -- barbarian kings acknowledged the nominal overlordship of the Imperator/Caesar Augustus
Justinian nearly succeeded in getting this back together but in the 8th century there was just the exarchate of Ravenna and the area around Venice left
The Orthodox church was the head church during that time. -- again an oversimplification. The 'Orthodox Church' and the 'Catholic Church' officially before 1054 were the same.
The Copts were formerly the Alexandrian church, along with Byzantium, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome. They weren’t called Roman Catholics or Latins either, but obviously the different churches ‘evolved’ into those distinct sects once Rome fell. -- sorry, wrong again
The first break-away was political -- the Assyrian Church moved away thanks to the Persian king using the Nestorian split as a pretext to separate HIS Christians from the Christian Roman Empire (Theodosius II in 395 declared Christianity as state religion). The Coptic split was the precursor of the next and I suspect, language had a large role -- the ones who formed the Oriental Orthodox were Coptic or Aramaic or Syriac or Armenian speakers
The Orthodox-Latin split was also in no small part due to politics and language -- by the 10th century and especially in the 11th, the East and West just didn't understand each other -- few Westerners spoke Greek and next to no Easterners spoke Latin, leave alone the barbaric Vulgate latin or Germanic languages
The reformatting in the 16th century was different from these earlier splits -- at least those which came after Lutheranism and Anglicanism, both of which had a political element and both of which retained key elements of orthodoxy like the sacraments
No, the problem with the 16th century movement was it opening the door to old things like Arianism (Jehovah's Witnesses) or Gnosticism (Unitarianism), Montanism etc.
Sorry, historically you are incorrect.
What we call the Byzantine Empire was called by the people who lived through it and by the Greeks today as "The Roman Empire" -- they were a continuation of the Roman Empire and the citizens called themselves Romaoi -- Romans
Their language may have become Greek and their dress too, but they considered themselves right until the fall of Constantinople as Romans -- hence the Turks called their 12th century kingdom in the south of Anatolia as the Sultanate of the Rum -- "Rum" being the Turkic pronunciation of Rome
"Rome was a Byzantine vassal" -- that's illogical -- as I said, Byzantine is what we Westerners call it, to the Byzantinians they were the Romans just taking back the eternal city from the barbarian Germanics
What did happen was that the Roman Empire was divided into West and East and even after the West lost its Roman Imperators, it was considered part of the overall Roman Empire -- barbarian kings acknowledged the nominal overlordship of the Imperator/Caesar Augustus
Justinian nearly succeeded in getting this back together but in the 8th century there was just the exarchate of Ravenna and the area around Venice left
The Orthodox church was the head church during that time. -- again an oversimplification. The 'Orthodox Church' and the 'Catholic Church' officially before 1054 were the same.
The first break-away was political -- the Assyrian Church moved away thanks to the Persian king using the Nestorian split as a pretext to separate HIS Christians from the Christian Roman Empire (Theodosius II in 395 declared Christianity as state religion). The Coptic split was the precursor of the next and I suspect, language had a large role -- the ones who formed the Oriental Orthodox were Coptic or Aramaic or Syriac or Armenian speakers
The Orthodox-Latin split was also in no small part due to politics and language -- by the 10th century and especially in the 11th, the East and West just didn't understand each other -- few Westerners spoke Greek and next to no Easterners spoke Latin, leave alone the barbaric Vulgate latin or Germanic languages
The reformatting in the 16th century was different from these earlier splits -- at least those which came after Lutheranism and Anglicanism, both of which had a political element and both of which retained key elements of orthodoxy like the sacraments
No, the problem with the 16th century movement was it opening the door to old things like Arianism (Jehovah's Witnesses) or Gnosticism (Unitarianism), Montanism etc.
The Copts nor the Orthodox nor the Syriacs hold Rome as the head of the church -- again an oversimplification -- especially the last
The Syriacs are divided into a number of Churches -- the Syrian Catholic Church, the Syrian Melkite, the Syrian Orthodox etc. -- there are 2 that are Catholic, one that is Eastern Orthodox, one that is Oriental
Also, the Orientals and the Orthodox all acknowledge the (clearly defined) primacy of the Bishop of Rome -- what they acknowledge is the role as primus inter pares -- first among equals
They understand this as a group of equals (the Patriarchs) with one being the first in "respect". What that actually means is left ambiguous.
The Orthodox accuse Latins (to some extent correctly) of being too literal -- oh and they accuse the various Western denominations outside the Catholic Church of the same
With regard to the Church's sacraments, the various ecumenical dialogues with one or other of the Ancient Churches of the East have already obtained significant results. While a certain number of doctrinal questions still remain to be clarified, the Catholic Church and the Ancient Churches of the East desire full recognition of the sacraments celebrated in their respective traditions.There will be unity -- and seemingly very soon between the various Churches in orthodoxy (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, Assyrian, possibly even Lutheran and traditional Anglican)As a matter of fact, the division between the Catholic Church and the Ancient Eastern Churches in the beginning had nothing to do with the dispute at the level of sacramental life. With certain Ancient Eastern Churches as, for example, the Syrian Orthodox Church, ecumenical dialogue has already permitted the Authorities to sign agreements according to which the faithful who find themselves in a situation that prevents them from going to a minister of their own Church can receive the sacraments of the Eucharist, Reconciliation and Anointing of the Sick from a minister of the other Church.
The ecclesiology of communion emphasized by the Second Vatican Council has established the doctrinal framework that has allowed the following themes to be studied from a new perspective: the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches, their identity as sister Churches, the actual communion (even if it is imperfect) which unites them, their progress towards full and visible communion and towards Eucharistic communion.
The meeting was organized very generously by the Authorities of the Coptic Orthodox Church at the Saint Marc Centre in Nasr City.
During the meeting, the participants on two occasions had the honour of meeting Pope Shenouda III, first on the evening of 28 January when they attended his weekly discourse in the Coptic-Orthodox Cathedral of Cairo, and then on Thursday, 29 January, when Pope Shenouda took part in a session of the Commission's work at Saint Marc Centre.
In his cathedral, the head of the Coptic-Orthodox Church invited Cardinal Walter Kasper to give a speech to the assembly. The Cardinal affirmed, among other things, that the Catholic Church and the Ancient Churches of the East are united by the same faith in the One God who is in Three Persons and in Jesus Christ, Our Saviour, the Incarnate Word of God, and moreover, that they acknowledge St Athanasius and St Cyril of Alexandria as Fathers and Doctors of the Church.