I haven't been a Catholic for over 40 years so I'm going by memory.
Catholic and Orthodox are basicaly the same. The only difference is that a point there was a question as to who was the legaly elected pope. The Bishop of Rome or the Bishop of Constantinople. The Roman Catholics go with the Bishop of Rome while the Orthodox go with the Bishop of Constantinople. Theologicaly all of the beliefs and sacrements are Identical . There is also the language difference.
I am not certain about the coptic. They are very similar but they split at an early date and consider the Bishop of Alexandria to be the Pope. They are traditionaly Arabic People and their liturgy is in Aramaic. They are among the last people that still speak Aramaic. They claim their NT is the unchanged Aramaic as used by Isa(as) and it is more in line with the Gospel of Barnabas than the Catholic NT. They are not true trinitarians and are often very well accepted by Muslims in the countries they live.
I haven't been a Catholic for over 40 years so I'm going by memory.
Catholic and Orthodox are basicaly the same. The only difference is that a point there was a question as to who was the legaly elected pope. The Bishop of Rome or the Bishop of Constantinople. The Roman Catholics go with the Bishop of Rome while the Orthodox go with the Bishop of Constantinople. Theologicaly all of the beliefs and sacrements are Identical . There is also the language difference.
I am not certain about the coptic. They are very similar but they split at an early date and consider the Bishop of Alexandria to be the Pope. They are traditionaly Arabic People and their liturgy is in Aramaic. They are among the last people that still speak Aramaic. They claim their NT is the unchanged Aramaic as used by Isa(as) and it is more in line with the Gospel of Barnabas than the Catholic NT. They are not true trinitarians and are often very well accepted by Muslims in the countries they live.
Hola Woodrow,
this is not so... all apostolic Churches recognize the authorities of the Holy Sees... Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem... each can be called "Pope" or "Holiness" Pope means father which comes from their correct titles "Patriarch of..."
also, all of the apostolic Churchs believe in the specialness of the Pope of Rome, the difference that caused the schism was that we believe the Pope is Prince of the Patriarchs and has actual dogmatic powers over the other Patriarchs... the other Patriarchs consider him to hold a merely honorific title of first among equals...
this and a clause added to the Nicene creed was the basis of the mutual excommunications of the Pope and Patriarch in 1054. today we have the orthodox churchs which do not recognize roman catholic communion as the same (dogmatically) so we cannot be given communion in a divine liturgy... likewise we do not recognize the orthodox communion as the same dogmatically so they cannot be given communion at our mass...
the orthodox because they do not believe in the primacy of the papacy as we do, and believe in the authority of egalitarian councils we say they are "creedal." whereas catholics believe in a more monarchal primacy of the papacy and are therefore dogmatic or doctrinal...
the mutual excommunications of the Patriarchs is over as of 2006 HH Pope Benedict XVI and HAH Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew withdrew the excommunications to end the schism... it will take time though...
HH Pope Shenouda III is the Patriarch of Alexandria, he is called the Pope of the Copts... the Copts have been in schism from the Holy Orthodox and Holy Catholic Churchs since they rejected the Council of Chalcedon... that concerned Jesus having two natures, one divine, one human.
they believe he had only one nature... i do not think they would include a gospel of barnabas (since it did not exist prior to the 16th century) and i do not think they are similar to muslims since their Patriarch Athanasius defended the Holy Trinity against the heresy of Arius at Nicea...
actually checking their Canon now i see it is not different from Catholicism...
the only major difference between Copts (who are oriental orthodox) and Catholics is their belief in a Jesus who had only one nature... not two... they still believe he is divine.
also, about the apostolic thrones... no lay member of an apostolic Church may disrespect a legitimate successor in an historic apostolic see... and most of our traditions are the same... when I met HH Pope John Paul II, servant of God, I had to wear black for example... it would be the same if I was ever lucky enough to meet HAH Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholemew I of Constantinople, HH Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria, HH Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas of Antioch (who i deperately wish to see someday) or HB Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem...
it is so with any eastern orthodox or oriental orthodox believer...
Hmm...I had always thought the difference between Catholic and Orthodox found its roots in the split between the Western Catholic Church and the Byzantine Eastern Catholic Church.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Hmm...I had always thought the difference between Catholic and Orthodox found its roots in the split between the Western Catholic Church and the Byzantine Eastern Catholic Church.
si... i explained why the split occured... uncertainty about what the primacy of the papacy meant and the filoque clause to the nicene creed... but the schism is finished, the excommunications no longer exist... now the question is reconciliation back to full communion and back to one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church...
peace be upon who follow the truth and seek for it:
thank you Jayda but I have quations:
what about protestants is there any differents between it and the others in belief and worship .. ?
you said that
gospel of barnabas (since it did not exist prior to the 16th century)
but I think that gospel of barnabas is exist .. I read it in arabic it's so beautiful .. and I know that barnaba is one of the disciples of Jesus peace be upon him ..!! :rolleyes:
peace be upon who follow the truth and seek for it:
thank you Jayda but I have quations:
what about protestants is there any differents between it and the others in belief and worship .. ?
you said that
but I think that gospel of barnabas is exist .. I read it in arabic it's so beautiful .. and I know that barnaba is one of the disciples of Jesus peace be upon him ..!! :rolleyes:
The "Gospel of Barnabas" is more than likely a medieval forgery.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
si... i explained why the split occured... uncertainty about what the primacy of the papacy meant and the filoque clause to the nicene creed... but the schism is finished, the excommunications no longer exist... now the question is reconciliation back to full communion and back to one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church...
maybe someday this will include protestants...
Dios te bendiga
Not sure about Protestants. The Catholic Church would have to be very attractive and have an abundance of religious and moral authority to make that happen, and right now that is not the case at all. Of course that is referring to the Catholic Church as an institution, not the religion itself.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
there is a book called the gospel of barnabas... it exists, i was saying that it did not exist prior to the 16th century when the muslims wrote it... gospels have to be traced back to an apostolic origin (simply saying that an apostle wrote it is not good enough), it must be something written before the death of the last apostle... the 16th century is nearly 14-1500 years after the death of the last apostle... and it must be generally accepted across all the traditional aposolic sees, the gospel of barnabas was not even accepted by a single one... let alone all...
it is neither canonical, nor historic and is not relevant to Christians in any way... it does exist, it is just not a real gospel and has nothing to do with Christianity...
please see the wikipedia article about this for more information...
Not sure about Protestants. The Catholic Church would have to be very attractive and have an abundance of religious and moral authority to make that happen, and right now that is not the case at all. Of course that is referring to the Catholic Church as an institution, not the religion itself.
Hola Keltoi...
i am not sure whether you are catholic or not... but the Church derives its moral authority directly from scripture and sacred tradition, and from the Pope who derives his moral authority directly from scripture and tradition... it would be heretical because of Chalcedon to say that the Pope or any patriarch doesnt have moral authority...
and things are already underway... technically the schism is over as of last year, it is not up to the joint commissions to look into reestablishing full communion...
protestants are another matter entirely... they do not believe in the moral authority of patriarchs, i do not know if they could ever be in full communion with the Catholic and Apostolic Church... but i hope someday that is so...
i am not sure whether you are catholic or not... but the Church derives its moral authority directly from scripture and sacred tradition, and from the Pope who derives his moral authority directly from scripture and tradition... it would be heretical because of Chalcedon to say that the Pope or any patriarch doesnt have moral authority...
and things are already underway... technically the schism is over as of last year, it is not up to the joint commissions to look into reestablishing full communion...
protestants are another matter entirely... they do not believe in the moral authority of patriarchs, i do not know if they could ever be in full communion with the Catholic and Apostolic Church... but i hope someday that is so...
Dios te bendiga
The Protestant break away from the Catholic Church had more to do with the Church as an institution, and somewhat with the Gospel itself. If you read Luther's 95 theses, his main issue with the Catholic Church was the selling of indulgences. Luther also broke away with the Church on the issue of salvation. He believed that Jesus Christ brought salvation through his death, and that faith alone was needed to achieve salvation.
To me personally, the most important thing Luther brought about was the spread of education. In some of his writings he mentions that the common people had no way to educate themselves on Christian doctrine, and that the Catholic Church was using this illiteracy to aid in the sale of indulgences and to stop the poor from learning about their faith.
Yes, I am a Protestant I don't have have a problem with Catholicism on any level other than my aggreement with the split from the Catholic Church by the Reformation. I think this needed to occur.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
I wonder. In the US, how are the relations between all those different Christian churches? Do they merely coexist and ignore eachother, or is there a matter of cooperation and some sort of 'togetherness'? Or maybe there even is some hostility from time to time?
I wonder. In the US, how are the relations between all those different Christian churches? Do they merely coexist and ignore eachother, or is there a matter of cooperation and some sort of 'togetherness'? Or maybe there even is some hostility from time to time?
Overall I think relations between churches is good. Usually the different denominations do their own charity work, but occasionally they will work together for larger projects.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
there is a book called the gospel of barnabas... it exists, i was saying that it did not exist prior to the 16th century when the muslims wrote it... gospels have to be traced back to an apostolic origin (simply saying that an apostle wrote it is not good enough), it must be something written before the death of the last apostle... the 16th century is nearly 14-1500 years after the death of the last apostle... and it must be generally accepted across all the traditional aposolic sees, the gospel of barnabas was not even accepted by a single one... let alone all...
it is neither canonical, nor historic and is not relevant to Christians in any way... it does exist, it is just not a real gospel and has nothing to do with Christianity...
please see the wikipedia article about this for more information...
Dios te bendiga
hi jayda .. actually I don't agree with you
why we need to write gospel of barnaba at the time that we have Quran
the words of God ..
As for Barnaba like it was stated in the new testament We found from them that He was one of the most pious and God fearing Students of Jesus (disciple) who always preserved all commandments and instructions given. As it was said in the bible Acts 11:22-23 (New International Version)
22News of this reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch.
23When he arrived and saw the evidence of the grace of God, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts.
24He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord.
God knows best ..
but .. what about Gosple of Judas?
si, Barnabas was a very great apostle... however he did not author the book that claims to be written by him. that is a lie created by the true authors (the turks) when they wrote it in the 16th century.
in order to be considered gospels there must be an actual connection to an apostolic writer... not just a claim of one, these things are investigated and chains are traced back to a true apostolic source. obviously no such thing happened with the book you are referring to because it was written in spanish and italian 1500 years after Barnabas died by turkish muslims.
the muslims needed the gospel of Barnabas because christians do not believe in the quran, it was obviously made so that they could say it is a gospel, not the quran, but it gives legitimacy to the quran. because the bible does not.
the gospel of Judas is the same, it was written centuries after the death of the last apostle, and also cannot be traced to a legitimate apostle, instead it can be traced to an ancient sect called "gnostics" that claimed to hold secret knowledge of God.
these things are deceptively called "gospels" and are deceptively titled after real people in the Bible to try to give them legitimacy, but unlike the synoptic gospels they cannot actually be traced to genuine apostles.
i do not understand why muslims insist on quoting these texts with Christians, we do not follow false texts and discussing matters of trinity or future prophets using these false texts is not discussing Christianity. it is discussing a religion that does not exist... nor would any muslim convince Christians to abandon the sacred Canon for the misguidance of heretical writings.
I wonder. In the US, how are the relations between all those different Christian churches? Do they merely coexist and ignore eachother, or is there a matter of cooperation and some sort of 'togetherness'? Or maybe there even is some hostility from time to time?
Usually there is no real hostility. You have some very indepedent groups who believe they are the only ones who are right in Christendom and like to toot their own horns; but they are pretty much ignored by the rest of us.
I really think human being are not honest with themself when it comes to the matter of worshipping God. It is a very hard thing to accept when people tell you was wrong or admit you where on the wrong. (I understand for some people it is a hard thing to do)
This is something evryone has to come to term with. Do not take other's beside Allah(s.w.t) was the fundemental creed all prophets came with.
People simply don't know what that mean's these day's, and when truth comes to them they are reluctant to accept but rather be on the path their forefathers on. It make's me incredibly sad.
I apologies for going of topic. Just had to say it.
Last edited by Skillganon; 02-01-2007 at 04:37 PM.
I really think human being are not honest with themself when it comes to the matter of worshipping God. It is a very hard thing to accept when people tell you was wrong or admit you where on the wrong. (I understand for some people it is a hard thing to do)
This is something evryone has to come to term with. Do not take other's beside Allah(s.w.t) was the fundemental creed all prophets came with.
People simply don't know what that mean's these day's, and when truth comes to them they are reluctant to accept but rather be on the path their forefathers on. It make's me incredibly sad.
I apologies for going of topic. Just had to say it.
hola Skillganon,
i think God desires people to live and worship him within the family and community structures he has created for us God has commanded us to honor our families and he does not mean with lip service. it is right that we honor God together and in the manner of our families, as long as this is within the bounds of Orthodoxy that God has graceously made known to us through the pillars of his Holy Scriptures and Church. and it is good that they play such a pursuasive role in our lives and religious beliefs.
in this way we can be proactive agents of God in the salvation of our families and our communities, just as they are proactive agents of God in the salvation of ourselves (1 Corinthians 7:12-15)...
to take it upon ourselves to selfishly break away from these bonds and forge a new path alone without consulting family and community and shut yourself away from these important angels God has placed in our lives, is a lonely path to nothing. God does not desire such a thing... but since he has given us the gift of free we can always choose to do this to ourselves.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
coptic .. catholic .. orthodox
Re: coptic .. catholic .. orthodox
but I have quations:
I don't have have a problem with Catholicism on any level other than my aggreement with the split from the Catholic Church by the Reformation. I think this needed to occur.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks