From:  (St.Athanasius)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Your church's Catholic history.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 00:32:36 GMT

In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the One God,
Amen. Peace and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

Dear Sean, Greetings, sorry for the delay, I can see we have both been
busy. You are doing a very good job with our visiting JW-the misnamed
'truth'. Keep up the good work..... As to this post I respond...

>I'm afraid I will have to decline espousing that distinction even if
>only to avoid generating confusion. This is especially so if the "c" is
>capitalized. I am also a bit confused by your implying that the Roman
>Catholic Church was the breakaway. As far as I was aware, the church
>that Constantine made official, for the state, was in fact the Roman
>Catholic Church. That was in 325 AD.

The Church that Constantine 'legalized' was the Catholic Church, or
Orthodox Christianity... This was actually in 312/313 AD at the Edict
of Milan. 325 AD was the first ecumenical council at Nicea. At this
time and for another 120 years the universal Church was one in faith
and no universal Bishop had supreme authority. That would not begin to
occur until after Leo the Great (450's)

> The papal structure was in place
>before that date and certainly before the dates you offer.

Not at all. The only thing that was in place was the Bishop of Rome
who had authority over his lands only. See cannon 6 of Nicea. All
other patriarchs had authority in their lands. The 'papal structure'
was not in place at all and would develope long after Nicea...

> So if the
>Roman Catholic Church has broken away, it appears it must have been
>from itself.

It is said by Orthodox that the Roman Pope was the first protestant,
because he is the one who broke away from Catholic orthodoxy. You
believe that Rome was the universal head of the Church since Christ,
but this is not so. Many countries had Catholic Christianity and were
not under Romes authority or control. Egypt, England, Ethiopia, India,
Palestine, Sudan, Pentapolis, Syria, etc. All were not under any
ecclesiastical supremacy from Rome. She never appointed Bishops for
those countries and had no say in their affairs. I could go on and on.

Consider this point. No succeeding Bishop had authority over any of
the living Apostles. Yet St Peter was martyred in Rome in 67 AD with
St Paul, and thus Bishop successors follolwed in Rome, including
Sixtus, Linus and Clement. However, St John  the beloved Apostle lived
and wrote for another 30 years until around 96 AD. It is not at all
possible that the bishops of Rome (for there were five or six in this
time because they kept getting martyred), had any authority over the
Apostle John himself!. This point alone sufficiently disproves and
universal papal claims for this time period. Otherwise St John would
have had to send his Book of Revelation via the 'Roman see'. A
ludicrous propisition. No supreme Poep for five to seven centuries
after Christ, only a Bishop who was seen as the spiritual head in
honour, not in authority. 

>What are the biblical or historical accounts of the apostles (those
>that actually followed Jesus) starting 'Catholic Churches'? As far as I
>was aware, they continued with Judaism.

They commenced catholic churches all over the world. These were
churches that all held to the one faith, yet had each apostle as their
head until he died, then the succession of bishops took over. St
Thomas commenced the Catholic Church in India, St Mark that in Egypt
and Pentapolis (my Church), St Peter that in Syria and Rome, St James
in Palestine etc etc. St paul in many gentile nations. The Apostles
did not continue as Judaizers, but after establishing that converts
did not have to become Jews first (Acvts 15) they confirmed that
Christianity and Judaism were incompatable. 

>Surely if you trace your church back to Constantine, it must accept RCC
>heritage. BTW, do you consider Constantine as providing a suitable
>heritage?
>

I do no trace my Church back to Constantine. My Church can be proven
to have existed in the first century AD. All language scholars study
Coptic manuscripts of the early translations of the New Testament.
Constantine started no Church at all, just legalized the religion. (It
had been formally outlawed by most Roman emperors)  Constantine is
considered a big saint by the Greek Orthodox etc, but we are fairly
quiet on him. We do regognise both he and his mother, St Helena who
located the Cross of our Lord in Jerusalem, as dying in the faith of
Christ. This is enough. 

>So what defined the "Roman system" and how does it differ from the
>system instigated in Rome?

The Roman System is that developing belief after the Council of
Chalcedon (451 AD) that the Roman Patriarch had Universal authority in
all Christendom. This was violently opposed by all other orthodoxies
throughout history. Orientals were slaughtered by Easterns and Romans
for not bowing to this teaching. Ultimately it would cause a split
with the East (1054 AD),  and then within the Roman Church in 1517 AD
under Dr Martin Luther. Note I confirm that the Roman Pope was a
figurehead, tghe first amongst equals, but never the supreme ruler
over all Christendom. This is the ancient model. IMHO
>
>> The Coptic Church is one of the embarrasements to the Roman Church's
>> claim of the only universal ancient Church. I should in honesty admit
>> that even among the orthodox there are disagreements over
>> jurisdictions, calendars etc and whilst the catholic faith is held,
>> often there is not inter-communion. A matter that is being addressed
>> at this very time.
>
>What is the canon of the Coptic Church? How did it acquire it?

Orthodox Canon is a deep subject and involves much study. I am not a
scholar of it. Essentially, there are three types of Canon. 1) That
which is essential to be Christian and is not ever changeable. (EG:
The belief in the Holy Trinity and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ).
2) That which is tradition, yet is changeable according to the
authorities of the Church. (EG: Bishops may be chosen from the ranks
of the celibate and we pray facing Eastward).  and 3) Local customs
that vary from Church to Church (EG: beards, robes, tunes,). Now the
trick is to know which Canon fal;ls into which group-Not always an
easy task even as an Orthodox. Sometimes we take centuries to come to
an understanding about something. Now the Coptic Church uses as her
Cannons such authorities as The Holy Scriptures (in fact some orthodox
allege we are almost Protestant by our use of the volumes of
Scriptures in defence of our faith), The Holy Tradition, the rites and
sacraments of the Church, The Saints records, the Church Fathers
writings, Oral Traditions passed from father to son etc etc. All go
together to define what we believe. If one asks an Orthodox what is
his Creedal statement, the answer is always come and see what we do!.
This is what we believe! 
>
>Thank you for that, but I think I will need greater historical evidence
>showing that the RCC was the splinter that broke away and formed a new
>structure. Though I am open minded on this, I confess that, at this
>stage, it sounds like the person being amputated from the arm.

The records of the fourth council at Chalcedon in 451 AD (In the N&PNF
Series) clearly show the shift in the Roman authority and the
separations that occured after that. Also the debate of St Cyprian of
Carthage with St Stephen of Rome in the 250's AD over the validity of
heretical baptism is another arfea that clearly shows that St Cyprian
knew of no universal authority of the Bishop of Rome. He argues
publically against St Stephen and denies his words as being orthodox
and St Cyprians highest authority was to call a council of Bishops in
North Africa which disproved (in their minds) St Stephen's position.
This speaks volumes to the third centuries Church's view of authority.

St Ignatius 107 AD spoke of Christian Catholic unity existing only
when the Christian is under the Apostolic Bishop AND partaking of the
Holy Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ Jesus. All apostolic
bishops whereever they were was the unity of the Catholic Church. 

I could go on but this should suffice. Needless to say there have been
many Roman Bishops in deep error, and whose authority has never been
accepted in many lands, and indeed whose authority has never even been
in place in some lands.

I hope this helps. Catholic means universal faith, not Roman Pope's
authority. 
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
He,who has neither the repentance of the Tax Collector, nor the good deeds of the Pharisee.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

              "The Word was made flesh in order to offer up this Body for all, 
                  and that we, partaking of  His Spirit, might be deified."
                         Saint Athanasius the Apostolic. 298-373 AD.