Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Coptic Catholic leader receives Pope's approval
Catholic World Report ^ | January 18, 2013

Posted on 01/18/2013 2:40:02 PM PST by NYer

Vatican City, Jan 18, 2013 / 03:00 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Pope Benedict XVI approved Bishop Ibrahim Isaac Sidrak as the new Patriarch of Alexandria of the Copts in Egypt, granting him "ecclesiastical communion.''

The former Bishop of Minya was elected during a Synod of Bishops of the Coptic Catholic Church in Cairo, which lasted from Jan. 12 to16. As part of the election, his rank was raised to archbishop.

The 57-year-old will replace Cardinal Antonio Naguib, aged 77, who resigned on Jan. 18 after suffering from partial paralysis and undergoing brain surgery.

The Vatican hopes his appointment will see more collaboration with Coptic Orthodox Pope Tawadros II, who began his patriarchal ministry in Egypt just two months ago.

And the Catholic Ordinaries of the Holy Land, including the heads of the Roman, Melkite, Maronite, Syrian, Armenian and Chaldean Rites, all offered a formal welcome to the new leader.

"The international press has called you a 'young patriarch,'" they said in a letter dated Jan. 18.

"We are sure that with this 'youth' you will be a point of reference within the Council of Oriental Catholic Patriarchs and the Ecumenical Council of the Churches and for the Church of Egypt," they added.

Archbishop Sidrak was born in Assiut, Egypt, and studied philosophy and theology at a Coptic seminary in Cairo.

He was ordained a priest on Feb. 7, 1980 and incarnated in the Eparchy of Assiut.

He served two years in the Church Michael the Archangel in Cairo before moving to Rome where he received a doctorate in theology from the Pontifical Gregorian University.

Archbishop Sidrak returned to Egypt where he taught theology at his seminary, the Patriarchal Seminary of Maadi.

He was elected Bishop of Minya in 2002 after working as rector of the seminary and as secretary general for the Coptic Catholic Church's office for catechetical teaching.

The Egyptian is the second bishop of Minya – an area south of Cairo holding one-fifth of the country's estimated 200,000 Copts – to be elected patriarch.

His ministry as bishop was marked by his efforts to help farmers and people in need, regardless of their faith, through increased social and charitable activities in the villages of the diocese.

The Coptic Catholic Church was established in 1824 and there are five parishes in the United States and in Canada.

Egypt now has two heads of Churches – Archbishop Sidra and the Coptic Orthodox leader Pope Tawadros II.

Over 10 percent of Egyptians are Copts, which makes them the largest Christian minority in the Middle East.

The Orthodox and Coptic leaders will surely be discussing the saftey of Egyptian Christians, which became a topic of concern after President Mohammed Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood Party and radical Salafis took up power in the country.

Christians also fear that the recently approved constitution will fail to protect them.


TOPICS: Catholic; Ministry/Outreach; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS:
Bishop Ibrahim Isaac Sidrak Elected New Patriarch of the Coptic Catholic Church
1 posted on 01/18/2013 2:40:07 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; SumProVita; ...

Pope Benedict XVI poses with U.S. leaders of Eastern Catholic churches May 18 during their “ad limina” visits to the Vatican. From are: Father Edward G. Cimbala, administrator of the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Passaic; Ukrainian Auxiliary Bishop John Bura of Philadelphia; Byzantime Catholic Bishop Gerald N. Dino of Phoenix; Chaldean Bishop Ibrahim N. Ibrahim of St. Thomas the Apostle, based in Southfield, Mich.; Maronite Bishop Gregory J. Mansour of Brooklyn, N.Y.; Armenian Bishop Mikael Mouradian of New York; Melkite Catholic Bishop Nicholas J. Samra of Newton, Mass.; Ukrainian Catholic Archbishop Stefan Soroka of Philadelphia; Pope Benedict; Byzantine Catholic Archbishop William C. Skurla of Pittsburgh; Syriac Bishoip Yousif Habash of Newark, N.J.; Romanian Bishop John M. Botean of Canton, Ohio; Ukrainian Catholic Bishop Paul P. Chomnycky of Stamford, Conn.; Ukrainian Catholic Bishop Richard S. Seminack of Chicago; Byzantine Bishop John M. Kudrick of Parma, Ohio; and Chaldean Bishop Sarhad Y. Jammo of the Eparchy of St. Peter the Apostle, based in El Cajon, Calif. (photo copyright: Servizio Fotografico de "L'O.R.", 00120 Citta Del Vaticano.)


Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 21 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches. It is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops. Through the Congregation for Oriental Churches, the Roman Pontiff works to assure the health and well-being of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity. In a certain sense, it is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity. Just as God is three Persons, yet one God, so the Church is 22 Churches, yet one Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this nicely:

"From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them... Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity" (CCC no. 814).

Although there are 22 Churches, there are only eight "Rites" that are used among them. A Rite is a "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony," (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28). "Rite" best refers to the liturgical and disciplinary traditions used in celebrating the sacraments. Many Eastern Catholic Churches use the same Rite, although they are distinct autonomous Churches. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church are distinct Churches with their own hierarchies. Yet they both use the Byzantine Rite.

To learn more about the "two lungs" of the Catholic Church, visit this link:

CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES

The Vatican II Council declared that "all should realize it is of supreme importance to understand, venerate, preserve, and foster the exceedingly rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern churches, in order faithfully to preserve the fullness of Christian tradition" (Unitatis Redintegrato, 15).

A Roman rite Catholic may attend any Eastern Catholic Liturgy and fulfill his or her obligations at any Eastern Catholic Parish. A Roman rite Catholic may join any Eastern Catholic Parish and receive any sacrament from an Eastern Catholic priest, since all belong to the Catholic Church as a whole. I am a Roman Catholic practicing my faith at a Maronite Catholic Church. Like the Chaldeans, the Maronites retain Aramaic for the Consecration. It is as close as one comes to being at the Last Supper.

Please freepmail me if you would like more information on the Eastern Catholic Churches.

2 posted on 01/18/2013 2:42:44 PM PST by NYer ("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

God bless and protect him.


3 posted on 01/18/2013 2:57:28 PM PST by onyx (FREE REPUBLIC IS HERE TO STAY! DONATE MONTHLY! IF YOU WANT ON SARAH PALIN''S PING LIST, LET ME KNOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
According to the Blue Guide to Egypt, Asyut is the largest and most important city of Upper Egypt. The ancient Egyptian name of the place was Zawty. The Greek name was Lykopolis, and the Coptic name Siout. St. John of Lykopolis (d. 394) was a teacher of such repute that the Emperor Theodosius I sent one of the imperial eunuchs to consult with him.

One of the most important finds of ancient Greek coins was made here in 1969--the Asyut hoard of 873 coins, thought to have been buried about 475 B.C. It has many coins from mainland Greece but also some from the Greek cities in Sicily, apparently something rarely found in ancient Egypt. See Archaic Greek coinage: the Asyut Hoard by Martin Price and Nancy Waggoner (London, 1975).

4 posted on 01/18/2013 3:08:31 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus; SunkenCiv
Thank you for posting that truly fascinating history on the city of Asyut and the ancient Greek coins. For those following this thread, here is an image of the coins.

For more information on their history, visit ARCHAIC GREEK SILVER COINAGE THE ASYUT HOARD

5 posted on 01/18/2013 4:55:30 PM PST by NYer ("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer; vladimir998

***Pope Benedict XVI approved Bishop Ibrahim Isaac Sidrak as the new Patriarch of Alexandria of the Copts in Egypt, granting him “ecclesiastical communion.’’***

Didn’t one of the resident Catholics here on FR recently declare the Copts to be a product of heretics?

Found it! Post #7

To: Citizen Tom Paine

“the Coptic Church is a 5th-6th century product of schism and heresy.”

7 posted on Saturday, December 29, 2012 7:10:55 PM by vladimir998

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2973256/posts


6 posted on 01/18/2013 6:08:26 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Click my name! See new paintings!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Verginius Rufus

Thanks!

If the leader lived in Pennsylvania, would his flock be known as the Keystone Copts?

Okay, sure, I’ll leave. ;’)


7 posted on 01/18/2013 7:57:56 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

:)


8 posted on 01/18/2013 8:00:15 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

You wrote:

“Didn’t one of the resident Catholics here on FR recently declare the Copts to be a product of heretics?”

Yep, and I was right too.

“Found it! Post #7”

And the Copts are products of heresy. The Coptic Catholics are those Copts who renounced their heresy and schism. Perhaps you didn’t know they have been two different groups for several centuries now. Most Protestants are too ignorant to know such things since they barely know anything about Church history.

I was right then, and I’m right now. Thanks for playing.


9 posted on 01/18/2013 8:20:44 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
And the Copts are products of heresy.

I've read that relations are very good, though, and unification is a possibility. I'm praying for that. I'm also praying that they're not wiped out.

10 posted on 01/18/2013 8:42:32 PM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Thank you for this post! Great info!! I am praying at times for our Egyptian Christians.


11 posted on 01/18/2013 9:16:20 PM PST by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Well from the Copts perspective, the Latins are the heretics. The Latin church may be bigger, but the Copts are older, and there are some things about the Eastern I like much better than the Western church, from the Protestant perspective.


12 posted on 01/18/2013 9:45:23 PM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! [You can vote Democrat when you're dead]...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

You wrote:

“Well from the Copts perspective, the Latins are the heretics.”

Copts have no authority to judge the Church as heretical. The very idea is absurd.

“The Latin church may be bigger, but the Copts are older, and there are some things about the Eastern I like much better than the Western church, from the Protestant perspective.”

The Coptic Church is not older - it dates back to the 5th or 6th century at most. What a Protestant likes or dislikes is inconsequential in regard to truth. Truth is truth. It has nothing to do with being likable or dislikable.


13 posted on 01/18/2013 10:10:34 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NYer


Bishop Ibrahim Isaac Sidrak

14 posted on 01/19/2013 6:56:51 AM PST by annalex (fear them not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan
The split goes back to 451, the Council of Chalcedon, which the Copts and other so-called Monophysites refused to accept. The Greek Orthodox Church and the Latins were on the same side in this dispute. From that time until the Muslim conquest of Egypt and Syria, trying to reconcile the two sides was one of the main obsessions of the Byzantine Emperors but nothing worked.

Christianity spread to all of these areas in the first 20 or 30 years and the Greeks, Latins, and Copts had mostly been on the same side in the earlier doctrinal controversies so it doesn't make sense to say that one church is older than another.

15 posted on 01/19/2013 10:19:53 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan; vladimir998
The Latin church may be bigger, but the Copts are older, and there are some things about the Eastern I like much better than the Western church, from the Protestant perspective.

A few years ago, I purchased this book to read during Lent. Normally, reading is tedious for me but I could not put this book down and recommended it to one of our well known freepers, Kolokotronis. He loved it so much that he began recommending it to his Orthodox friends. I did the same with my Catholic friends. The book is a veritable gem and a MUST READ!

DESCRIPTION: - Written as a journal, Journey Back to Eden recounts Mark Gruber's year of spiritual discovery among the austere desert monasteries of Egypt. His journey began almost accidentally as part of his doctoral research, but it became more, much more. His account - entertaining, poignant, and spiritually challenging - takes us back to the times of St. Anthony and the ancient Desert Fathers.

MOST HELPFUL CUSTOMER REVIEW
Father Gruber's journal of his year with the Copts cannot be called a travelogue of the trials and tribulations of a young American student in Egypt. Throughout his day-to-day activities and frustrations lies a deeper insight into the people of a world in which all things are influenced by the spiritual. In the early days of his journey, for example, he tells of building a sand castle on a beach. Father Gruber is accosted by some young Muslim boys who accuse him of spreading Christianity in Egypt, mistaking his sand castle for a church. Egypt is truly a place of discovery, Gruber says, " ... seeing the character of these people and how deeply their religious concerns and issues preoccupy them and how they tend to interpret everything they experience through the prism of their faith. In seconds, the boys kicked down the towers of my castles and ran away ... triumphant or afraid?"

He also learns with some amazement of the Copts' respect for monks and priests, and he marvels at finding himself standing in churches using a handcross on lines of pilgrims who approach for blessings. On another occasion, he is baffled by an encounter with two Muslim brothers who, thinking there is a bad spirit in their house after their father's death, ask Father Gruber to bless the house. When he expresses his puzzlement, they respond that this is perfectly acceptable, and he should not fear any problems would persist. He is told not to interpret this as a secret vote of confidence from the Moslems. A friend tells him Moslems rationalize that the Muslim sheik is dealing with God directly and "if you want to resolve a problem with evil spirits, you need someone whose religion is of a lesser sort."

While the book can easily be read as a journal from beginning to end, its daily entries lend themselves to being read individually as spiritual and cultural reflections on an ancient people who can offer insights to modern Western man. Father Gruber's conversations with the monks lead to his understanding of the sense of humility and charity of the desert monks. His travels to 12 Coptic monasteries in the Egyptian desert describe monastic lifestyles steeped in silence, prayer and an austere existence devoid of any modern conveniences. At the same time, the monasteries, defined in many ways by climate and geography, are built on a deep sense of community. How is it that in a world of every modern convenience, where geography and climate play little role in movement and lifestyle, most Westerners remain isolated? As Father Gruber prepared to leave Egypt, he realized how intensely he was affected by the Copts of Egypt. Thus, this is essentially a book about a deeply spiritual pilgrimage and the profound impact it had on one man's life. The afterword strikes a note of longing to remain in Egypt tempered with a desire to return to America. "I shall only manage to return to the world from which I came if I consider myself a bearer of the desert harvest.... My eyes will be turning backward, even as I had once looked forward to a future horizon before I came here."


Personally, being Roman Catholic and practicing my faith in an Eastern Catholic Church, I was drawn into the deep spirituality of the Coptic monks and intrigued by Fr. Gruber's reactions. I truly treasure this small book and those with whom I have shared it, have felt the same way. They now "gift" it to friends and relatives. You can read through portions of the book on the AMAZON.COM web site.

16 posted on 01/19/2013 2:42:52 PM PST by NYer ("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: St_Thomas_Aquinas; vladimir998; Ruy Dias de Bivar
I've read that relations are very good, though, and unification is a possibility. I'm praying for that. I'm also praying that they're not wiped out.

Keep in mind that there are two Coptic Churches - one Orthodox, the other Catholic. The Coptic Catholic Church is an Alexandrian Rite particular Church in full communion with the Pope of Rome. Historically, it represents a schism from the Coptic Orthodox Church, its adherents having left the Orthodox church to enter into communion with the Bishop of Rome. Read More

Also, The Coptic Catholic Church

17 posted on 01/19/2013 3:04:05 PM PST by NYer ("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

The Coptic Catholics are those Copts who renounced their heresy and schism. >>

sounds correct to me, because if they didn’t renounce thier heresy they would still be Orthodox, right?


18 posted on 01/19/2013 3:14:41 PM PST by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

Essentially, yes.


19 posted on 01/19/2013 3:17:41 PM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Well, that is the info I was looking for. Thanks.

Now when I see the words “Coptic” I will know there is a difference. between the two branches.


20 posted on 01/19/2013 3:39:57 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Click my name! See new paintings!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

The Alexandrian church from which the Copts evolved was one of the earliest founded, not long after Christ’s ascension. Your ‘history’ is laughable as the ‘heretical’ split you talked about happened in 451, so how could they have started in the 5th and 6th centuries when they were already attending the councils centuries before that.

And the Latins have no authority to judge anyone as heretical either. This has been the problem in Christianity for centuries once the Muslims finished conquering the Christian lands of Africa and the Middle East, is that the Roman church has always claimed supremacy simply because they were now the largest church.

Nobody bought it, and nobody ever will. All it serves is to stir up dissension among the Body, but the Latins won’t leave it alone.


21 posted on 01/20/2013 7:49:48 AM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! [You can vote Democrat when you're dead]...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

You wrote:

“The Alexandrian church from which the Copts evolved was one of the earliest founded, not long after Christ’s ascension.”

Evolved?

“Your ‘history’ is laughable as the ‘heretical’ split you talked about happened in 451, so how could they have started in the 5th and 6th centuries when they were already attending the councils centuries before that.”

The Coptic Church has been a distinct body - having chosen heresy and schism - since 451 when it refused to recognize Chalcedon. Before that time Coptic Chirstians were merely part of the Catholic Church. After that time, they were their own Church and in heresy and schism. Now, they have essentially abandoned the heresy, and they make no claim to the schism. Thus, the way to reunion is open as was admitted by Coptic leaders in the 1950s already.

“And the Latins have no authority to judge anyone as heretical either.”

The Catholic Church does. And it has.

“This has been the problem in Christianity for centuries once the Muslims finished conquering the Christian lands of Africa and the Middle East, is that the Roman church has always claimed supremacy simply because they were now the largest church.”

False. The Roman Church has led the Church since long before Islam arose.

“Nobody bought it, and nobody ever will.”

Actually everyone who was anyone of consequence acknowledged the primacy of the Roman Church for quite some time. This still happens sometimes today even among those who were taught not to believe in it. There’s even the noted episode where an Assyrian bishop researched the need for papal primacy in 2005 and later brought 3,000 of his parishioners into the Catholic Church with him in 2008: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/california_chaldeans_receive_3000_assyrian_christians_into_catholic_communion/

“All it serves is to stir up dissension among the Body, but the Latins won’t leave it alone.”

The TRUTH always divides those who seek it from those who don’t know it and don’t care for it. Study and pray more and you might learn the truth on this matter.


22 posted on 01/20/2013 9:45:55 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

If I may comment on something here, 451 is actually in the 5th Century, and therefore cannot also be “centuries before that” as you have stated.


23 posted on 01/20/2013 10:45:33 AM PST by cothrige
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

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.


24 posted on 01/20/2013 8:33:32 PM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! [You can vote Democrat when you're dead]...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan
Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

25 posted on 01/20/2013 8:44:03 PM PST by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

sigh...true but, he asked for it.

Promise to play nice from here.


26 posted on 01/20/2013 9:09:26 PM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! [You can vote Democrat when you're dead]...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

Thanks!


27 posted on 01/20/2013 9:10:53 PM PST by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

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?


28 posted on 01/21/2013 2:06:05 AM PST by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar; NYer; vladimir998
Ruy -- this is of the Coptic Catholic Church

After the Coptic Church and orthodoxy (Catholic+Eastern Orthodox) had a schism, then they went their own way, but in 1442, a delegation of the Coptic Orthodox Church signed the Cantate Domino to join the Catholic Church.

The person referred to in this post is a head of a Catholic patriarchate. This Coptic Catholic Church is part of the Catholic Church

29 posted on 01/21/2013 5:58:39 AM PST by Cronos (Middle English prest, priest, Old English pruost, Late Latin presbyter, Latin presbuteros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan; vladimir998
free vulcan 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

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.

30 posted on 01/21/2013 6:43:40 AM PST by Cronos (Middle English prest, priest, Old English pruost, Late Latin presbyter, Latin presbuteros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan; vladimir998
free vulcan 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

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.

31 posted on 01/21/2013 6:44:00 AM PST by Cronos (Middle English prest, priest, Old English pruost, Late Latin presbyter, Latin presbuteros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan
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.

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

32 posted on 01/21/2013 6:49:48 AM PST by Cronos (Middle English prest, priest, Old English pruost, Late Latin presbyter, Latin presbuteros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan; NYer
Relations with the Ancient Churchs of the East
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.

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.

There will be unity -- and seemingly very soon between the various Churches in orthodoxy (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, Assyrian, possibly even Lutheran and traditional Anglican)
33 posted on 01/21/2013 6:57:49 AM PST by Cronos (Middle English prest, priest, Old English pruost, Late Latin presbyter, Latin presbuteros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Thanks. This is more what I am looking for. I am not looking for arguments, but over the years I have kind of picked up a hobby of trying to figure what all these first millenial sects believed, and what separated them from other Christians at that time.

Do you know of any good books or web pages on these sects?


34 posted on 01/21/2013 7:54:32 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Click my name! See new paintings!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; Free Vulcan; Ruy Dias de Bivar
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.

This is the situation here in Albany NY. Both the Syriac Orthodox and Maronite Catholic Churches have members whose relatives were baptized into the other's church. It is common practice in the Middle East for a married couple to practice the faith of the husband. We have several Maronite Catholic families from Lebanon where brothers and sisters inter married Syriac Orthodox christians. Hence, the Orthodox wives of the Maronites attend services in the Maronite Church and the sisters, who married Syriac Orthodox christians, attend services at that church. Because of the differences in the liturgical calendars, It is not uncommon to see the orthodox families at our services on Hosanna (Palm) Sunday and vice versa. When the 2 year old child of a blended family died recently, services were held at both churches. Ironically, the Syriac Orthodox priest does not speak Arabic, even though he has a large Arabic speaking congregation. For the baby's funeral, our Maronite Catholic pastor did the Arabic readings at the Syriac Orthodox church. This same priest has also been granted Latin Rite faculties by the RC bishop so he can say mass during the week at priestless parishes and consecrate enough hosts for their weekend services.

Fr. Georges, at times, is like a whirling dervish, helping and assisting where needed. During the week, after praying the Maronite Diivine Liturgy at our church, he also says the NO mass at a local catholic hospital, where he chants the words of consecration in Aramaic, as he does in the Maronite Church. The hospital nuns love it! Surrounded by aging, white haired RC priests, Fr. Georges stands out with his youthful face (only 34) and dark hair. Perhaps this is how Christ envisioned His church :-)

35 posted on 01/21/2013 2:01:20 PM PST by NYer ("Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." --Jeremiah 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Yes, I am aware that Byzantium is the Roman Empire, even if I didn’t hint at that. However that is my point. It’s hard to say that the Latins were the dominant Catholic church since before Constantine when you have the Orthodox church sitting within the preeminent Eastern Roman Empire while Rome was both a piece of the Empire for part of, and more or less on it’s back for a good deal of the other part of the last half of the first millennium.

And in theory yes, Rome was simply part of the old Empire the Byzantines wanted back, but that was their perspective. In practice Rome was never fond of Byzantine rule and strove against it even when it could barely take care of itself. Besides, Byzantium hardly held Italy long enough to be of consequence before the Germanics took a good chunk of it right back. The reality is the whole time Rome was scheming with the Franks and other Germanics to sweep aside the Arians, take Italy, and form something out of the old Western Empire clear up to the point where Pope Leo found his man in Charlemagne.

That’s why I termed it a vassal state, as it constantly chafed against Eastern Roman rule, as did the Germanics and Slavs as a whole. This is evident by the fact that at the first opportunity, the Latin church jumped right in with the Frankish Holy Roman Empire, a New Rome essentially where it would be the head church inside a real empire that would both crush it’s rivals the Arians and rival Constantinople. They even tried to expand that concept to the Slavs with the newly Christianized Bulgarian Empire to put the Byzantines against a two-front threat.

In light of that, I guess at the end of the day I look at it this way - the Latins can assert and pound the table about their supremacy all day, but no one is listening. History just doesn’t jibe with their story. The only way I see that changing is by attrition as the Muslims seek to exterminate the Christian church in North Africa and the Middle East, but that is a marriage of necessity and convenience, not acquiescence in my book.


36 posted on 01/21/2013 7:40:03 PM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! [You can vote Democrat when you're dead]...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
but over the years I have kind of picked up a hobby of trying to figure what all these first millenial sects believed, and what separated them from other Christians at that time.

well, there is a very good book in German called "the Ancient Churches of the East" -- i've read the translation in French and know there is one translation into Polish, but I don't believe there is any translation into English

I presume you mean first millenium Christian groups, right?

I would prefer to use the term groups to remove any connotation with sect

But, from Apostolic times we see a distinct group of, let's call it "orthodoxy" ( the bulk who hold to the gospels and some letters of Paul (not all were initially acknowledged by all -- Hebrews being a case in point) and the first 2 letters of Peter and of James (the book of revelation was rejected by most for a long time until canon was closed)) and those who "orthodoxy" identify as outside based on dogmatic beliefs -- Mandaeans (who hold even today that Jesus was a false messiah and john the Baptist was the real one), Gnostics, etc

But, they retained the same belief -- not quite hard to believe when you think of the quality of Roman roads and communication -- the emperor could get a message from Arabia-Petra to Scotland in a few days and the common man a little longer. Travel by Roman road was sure and quite fast (in fact not achieved again in Europe until the late 1800s)

Anyway -- the first big split we can read of is the Assyrian Church -- based in the Persian Empire

I'll stick to that one in this post -- you of course know that there was a rivalry between Rome and Iran right from the time of Crassus in 50 AD?

After Alexander the Great died, his empire was split between his generals -- the Diodache. One got the Greek/Macedonian heartland, another strong one, Ptolemy got Egypt and the strongest, Seleucus got what is now Syria, Turkey, Armenia, Iran, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Baluchistan

But the Seleucid empire shriveled from the time Seleucus died -- but not before Antiochus IV Epiphanius despoiled the Jewish Temple (a good read is the book of Maccabees -- book 1 for the historical basis), shrivelling down by 100 AD to just about a small portion of what is now north-eastern Syria

At the same time a loose confederation of Iranic peoples, the Parthi rose in what is now Uzbekistan and took over much of Greater Iran. For a long time, there was no issue with Rome as Rome was (from 300 BC to 50BC) involved in the Western Mediterranen. But, by 100 BC, it had taken Epirus (albania) and nudged into Greece. Then Pompey the Great in 60 BC took over Jerusalem and much of the eastern Mediterranean bar Egypt. The 3rd member of the Pompey-Caesar-Crassus triumvirate, Crassus, looked for glory against the Parthians but ended up with a massive defeat (one of the most massive for Rome ever) at Carrhae -- present day Harran in Turkey on the borders with Syria where 35,000 legionaries were lost. That started the Roman-Parthian wars. These continued on and off until Trajan -- now remember that the Parthians were a confederation, so Rome had an easy time. Trajan destroyed them and pushed the Roman empire to the Persian gulf, to what is now Kuwait

But, in doing so, they destroyed the Parthians and set the stage for a far more centralized and stronger power -- the Sassanids to arise

The House of Sasan was Persian, of the lineage of Khorush the Great (Cyrus the Great) and looked on their mission as a divine mission granted by Ahura Mazda to reconquer the Persian lands (note: Darius the Mede, the successor to Cyrus, literally ruled over 40% of the world's population) and to fight on the side of the god of light (Ahura Mazda) against the darkness (Aingra Mainyu)

Rome versus Persia was a centuries long war - from 250 AD, through to the defeats of Valerian (when, for the first time, in 256 AD, an Emperor was captured in battle) right to the final treaty, signed just before Islam came charging out of the desert in 600 AD

Rome and Persia hated each other -- the Romans believed they had a manifest destiny to spread their dignitas, their humanitas, their civilisation. And the Persians believed that they had a divine mission to spread their own empire

Christians in Persia and Iraq were on the fault line

initially, under the persecutions of Dacian, Valerian, the Macriani, when Christianity was outlawed, the Shahenshah of Persian welcomed the Christians (the enemy of my enemy) and there are rumors that Shapur II even converted to Christianity (rumors only, 0 proof)

BUT, the Christians overplayed their hand and burnt down zoroastrian fire-temples, prompting a push back against them

This was momentary, but what really turned the tide against Christians was a century later in 395 AD when Theodosius II made it a state religion -- now, if your mortal enemy makes a religion state religion, you immediately view the adherents of that religion in your country as your enemy (which is the reason for much of the medieval Catholic-Protestant-Orthodox bloodshed)

The only way for the Christians in Persia to survive was to say "hey -- those are not our type of Christians, we split"

37 posted on 01/21/2013 10:38:41 PM PST by Cronos (Middle English prest, priest, Old English pruost, Late Latin presbyter, Latin presbuteros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
but over the years I have kind of picked up a hobby of trying to figure what all these first millenial sects believed, and what separated them from other Christians at that time.

then, you should ideally visit Kerala or read about the Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankara, Syrian Orthodox and Jacobite Churchs there -- it will give you an insight

And in Syria itself you have the Syrian Melkite Church which is intriguing

38 posted on 01/21/2013 10:40:05 PM PST by Cronos (Middle English prest, priest, Old English pruost, Late Latin presbyter, Latin presbuteros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: NYer
" where he chants the words of consecration in Aramaic, as he does in the Maronite Church"

Wow

39 posted on 01/21/2013 10:41:15 PM PST by Cronos (Middle English prest, priest, Old English pruost, Late Latin presbyter, Latin presbuteros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan
It’s hard to say that the Latins were the dominant Catholic church since before Constantine when you have the Orthodox church sitting within the preeminent Eastern Roman Empire while Rome was both a piece of the Empire for part of, and more or less on it’s back for a good deal of the other part of the last half of the first millennium.

The thing is that you are taking a split of 1054 and projecting it backwards

in 315 AD when Christianity was no longer outlawed (but not the state religion), there was no large Church at Constantinople -- the 4 Churches were Rome, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. Jerusalem was nowhere near the force it was due to the destruction in 69 AD -- it sunk into nominal significance. Ditto for Antioch -- difficult to defend and threatened with sacking by the Persians -- it was sacked twice by the Persians in 250-256 AD

There was basically Alexandria and Rome. The Alexandrians did produce the larger chunk of Church Fathers, it was a center of Christianity and if you look at real numbers you would think that they would get primacy. Yet, the bishop of Rome was given primacy -- in the sense of first among equals and in many councils as the deciding vote

And this way it remained during the first decades of a non-persecuted Christianity in the Roman Empire

now, by the time Christianity was made state religion -- in 395 AD, yes, Byzantine had waxed in importance and so too had the Patriarch of Byzantine

Yet, there is still no separation of orthodoxy -- Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Rome and Byzantine are united

Theodosius II elevates Byzantine to the pentarchy, purely as the Emperor was sitting there -- and yes, that made sense

From that point on there is a tussle between Rome and Byzantine -- but not a tussle between Latins and Orthodox as you are projecting backwards

The Byzantine Church has some problems like Patriarch Nestorius etc.

And, in all of these cases, the role of the Patriarch of the West remains as the primus inter pares -- there is no doubt of that

To a specific sense that you make of "a dominant Church within the Catholic Church" -- if you mean one ruling over the others like the medieval papacy, then yes, you are correct. If you mean one given spiritual 'first among equals' place, then no, you are wrong

40 posted on 01/21/2013 10:53:42 PM PST by Cronos (Middle English prest, priest, Old English pruost, Late Latin presbyter, Latin presbuteros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan
And in theory yes, Rome was simply part of the old Empire the Byzantines wanted back, but that was their perspective. In practice Rome was never fond of Byzantine rule and strove against it even when it could barely take care of itself. Besides, Byzantium hardly held Italy long enough to be of consequence before the Germanics took a good chunk of it right back. The reality is the whole time Rome was scheming with the Franks and other Germanics to sweep aside the Arians, take Italy, and form something out of the old Western Empire clear up to the point where Pope Leo found his man in Charlemagne.

hmmm...true -- and the reason was not religious, but socio-linguistic leading to political

The turning point could be put as the reign of Flavius Heraclius Augustus in 610 AD when two things happened:

  1. Islam -- sweeping away Antioch and Jerusalem and Alexandria and making it a Rome versus Constantinople fight
  2. In 620 he changed the official language of the Empire from Latin to Greek

The latter was a big hit. It was logical for Heraclius as most in the East spoke Greek not Latin. But just a few years later, NO ONE spoke Latin, while in the West there were fewer speakers of Greek. Net-net, the two sides just didn't understand what the heck the other was arguing about, especially over intricacies like homousis etc.

by 700 AD, the fact was that these were not speaking to each other, and the Western Patriarch's problems -- the Arians, the Magyar, Viking, Saracen, Slavic etc. invasions -- were ignored by the East. The Pope had no choice but to seize on a suitable political power and that's why he chose the Franks

41 posted on 01/21/2013 11:02:27 PM PST by Cronos (Middle English prest, priest, Old English pruost, Late Latin presbyter, Latin presbuteros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan
That’s why I termed it a vassal state, as it constantly chafed against Eastern Roman rule, as did the Germanics and Slavs as a whole. This is evident by the fact that at the first opportunity, the Latin church jumped right in with the Frankish Holy Roman Empire, a New Rome essentially where it would be the head church inside a real empire that would both crush it’s rivals the Arians and rival Constantinople. They even tried to expand that concept to the Slavs with the newly Christianized Bulgarian Empire to put the Byzantines against a two-front threat.

True enough about the part until the Bulgars

the Bulgars were ALREADY the second threat to Constantinople, and remained so even after their conversion to Christianity. They remained like so until the Magyars came

Then the second Bulgar Empire was another threat to the reduced Byzantine Empire, but were crushed by the Turks

42 posted on 01/21/2013 11:04:01 PM PST by Cronos (Middle English prest, priest, Old English pruost, Late Latin presbyter, Latin presbuteros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan; NYer
In light of that, I guess at the end of the day I look at it this way - the Latins can assert and pound the table about their supremacy all day, but no one is listening. History just doesn’t jibe with their story

Firstly, I'm a Latin, and secondly, NYer is a Latin but attends an Eastern Catholic Church. Neither of us (and incidently neither does Pope Benedict or Pope John Paul II) talk about 'supremacy' - at the Papal stage that is acknowledged as wrong. And you can see this in the funeral of Pope John Paul II when the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churchs were the ones leading the coffin -- because this returned to the idea of the Patriarchs as equals with the Patriarch of the West as the first among equals

That view is the view of the present Pope and is permeating all in the West and that is why relations between Catholic and Orthodox and Orientals and Assyrians are warmer and warmer.

43 posted on 01/21/2013 11:07:25 PM PST by Cronos (Middle English prest, priest, Old English pruost, Late Latin presbyter, Latin presbuteros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Thanks! That is the kind of info I am looking for.


44 posted on 01/22/2013 7:13:07 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Click my name! See new paintings!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

You forget about the first split over the veneration of icons, coming out of the second council of Nicaea. After that the Latins and Orthodox pretty much de facto go their separate ways, capped by Pope Leo crowning Charlemagne as Imperator Romanus.

And no, at the point, at least on the surface, they weren’t hostile, but the division was there, and had been there since the Lombards. It just widened over time due to various events, but in reality Rome had always sought it’s own destiny over the other churches. In many respects the Latins did what the Protestants did centuries later vis a vis Constantinople.

Which is fine in my book. They were the proper church at the time to win and organize the Germanic tribes in Western Europe out of paganism, even if they had their missteps and corrupt Popes. As far as the current, I have great respect for Popes Benedict and John Paul II. They do and did tell it like it is.

I only have a problem with those Latinophiles that seem to want to rewrite history to make Rome the dominant church since Christ, when clearly they were not for centuries, in principle or actuality.


45 posted on 01/22/2013 7:45:56 AM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! [You can vote Democrat when you're dead]...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
I recommend reading "PHILIP JENKINS - THE LOST HISTORY OF cHRISTIANITY" -- some excerpts
About 780 AD, the bishop Timothy became patriarch, or catholicos, of the Church of the East, which was then based at the ancient Mesopotamian city of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (in modern day Iraq). He was then 52 and lived on into his nineties, dyuing in 823 AD.

At every stage, Timothy's career violates everything we think we know about the history of Christianity -- about its geographical spread, its relationship with political state power, its cultural breadth, and its interactions with other religions. In terms of his presitge, and the geographical extent of his authority, Timothy was arguably the most significant Christian spiritual leader of his day , much more influent than the Patriarchs in Rome and Constantinople -- Perhaps a quarter of the world's Christians looked to Timothy as both spiritual and political head.

.....

Well into the Middle Ages, the Christian strongholds of the Middle East included such currently newsworthy Iraqi cities as Basra, Mosul and Kirkuk, while Tikrit -- hometown of Saddam hussein -- was a thriving Christian center several centuries after the coming of Islam.

Focusing on the Asian, Eastern story of Christianity forces us to jettison our customary images of the so-called Dark Ages. From Timothy's point of view, the culture and learning of the ancient world had never been lost...

The Church of the East still thought and spoke in Syriac, and its adherents continued to do so for several centuries afterward. As late as the thirteenth century, they still called themselves Nasraye "Nazaarenes". Monks and priests bore the title rabban

..

To appreciate the scale of the Church of the East, we can look at the list of hte Church's metropolitans -- that is, of those senior clergy. in england, the medieval church had 2 metropolitans: York and Canterbury. Timothy himself presided over nineteen metropolitans and 85 bishops. Just in Timothy's lifetime, new metropolitan sees were created near Tehran, in Syria, Turkestan etc. Arabia had at least 4 sees and Timothy created a new one in Yemen. And the Church was growing in southern India

Timothy reported the conversion of the Turkish great king, the khagan, who then ruled over much of central Asia. He mentioed in 780 AD how :in these days the Holy Spirit has anointed a metropolitan for the Turks, and we are preparing to consecrate another one for the Tibetans"

The Church operation in Syriac, Persian, Turkish, Soghdian and Chinese

....

When Timothy died in 823, he had every reason to hope for his Church's future. The new caliph was friendly to Christian clergy and scholars, and although some ordinary Christians were drifting toward the new faith, there were few signs of any ruinous defections. Even if conditions under Islamic rule ever did become difficutl, the Church of the East had plenty of opportunities to grow outside that realm, with all the new conversions in central Asia and china, and the continuing presence in India.

Any reasonable projection of the Christian future would have foreseen a bipolar world, divided between multiethnic churches centered respectively in Constantinople and Baghdad. Timothy would hprobably have felt little hope for the future of Christianity in western Europe. Already in Timothy's last days, Charlemagen's vaunted empire was fragmenting, and falling prey to the combined assaults of the pagan Norsemen and Muslims Saracens. In the century after 790, ruin and massacre overtook virtually all the British and Irish monasteries that had kept learning alive over the previous two centuries, and from which missionaries ahd gone out to evangelize northern Europe. Spain was already under Muslim rule, and southern Italy and southern France seemed to follow. In 846 Saracens raided Rome, plundering the Basilica of Saint Peter and the tomb of Peter.

Latin Europe's low point came soon after 900 when, within the space of a couple of years, areas of central France were ravaged in quick succession by pagan Vikings from the north, Muslim Moors from the south and pagan Magyars from the east: Christians had nowhere left to hide. Perhaps history would ultimately write off the Christian venture into western Europe as rash overreach, a diversion from Christianity's natural destiny, which evidently lay in Asia. Europe might have been a continent too far


46 posted on 02/13/2013 1:35:48 AM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Thanks! I do enjoy reading the history of Christianity. I wish more people were aware that it was not smooth sailing.


47 posted on 02/13/2013 7:52:45 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar ( Too old to cut the mustard any more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

The problem is that most WEstern Christians whether Catholic or in that umbrella term “Protestant” don’t know about the Oriental or Assyrian Churches. We have our stupid fights and ignore the Ancient Church of the East. We don’t fight FOR them, but at times fight against them — as we did when we knocked off Saddam and replaced him with jihadis and are doing now with Assad.


48 posted on 02/13/2013 10:45:55 PM PST by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson