(Ron) Dick and the original church
Helen Willis hhiwater@BRIGHT.NET
Sat, 02 May 1998 14:58:12 -0700 (00894167892, 354B96F3.654E@bright.net)
Brian Dean wrote:
>
> HELEN:
> So what is the Coptic Church? It's as old as the two versions you
> mention above, but not a part of either. By the way, there is not one
> Orthodox Church, but many each with it's own bishop, (Greek Orthodox,
> Russian Orthodox, and so own) that's part of what the original
> seperation was about, the orthodox churches believe that no bishop is
> head of "the church", each church has it's own head. So much for the
> one true church, which is what Dick was claiming.
>
> RON
> The Orthodox Churches accept the decisions of the first seven
> ecumenical councils. So does the Catholic Church. They have not had an
> ecumenical council since their separation from the RC Church. The
> orthodox do, in principal, accept the "seniority" of the Bishop of Rome
> if not his authority. Even the writer of their own liturgy, St. John
> Chrysostom appealed to the Pope when the Church at Constantinople fell
> into error. The "Coptic" Church deviated on the doctrine of the Trinity,
> as would be agreed by the Orthodox Churches as well. Read a history of
> the Orthodox Church, such as Timothy (Kallistos) Ware's "The Othodox
> Church", and you will see that the Eastern Churches frequently appealed
> to the Bishop of Rome when their local sees fell into heresy or error.
HELEN:
But the Coptics are as old as Orthodox and Catholic churches, so any
claim for one Christian church until the Reformation is idiotic. Isn't
it? Which is the point I was trying to make. And the Orthodox and
Catholics had seperated before to Reformation, right? There has
apparently nearly always been more than one Christian church! Right?
Helen
hhiwater@bright.net