الموضوع منقول : عبارة قديمة جديدة لمن لا يريد ان يفهم بل فقط ينقل كما يردد الببغاء

المحرر موضوع: الموضوع منقول : عبارة قديمة جديدة لمن لا يريد ان يفهم بل فقط ينقل كما يردد الببغاء  (زيارة 1158 مرات)

0 الأعضاء و 1 ضيف يشاهدون هذا الموضوع.

غير متصل Eissara

  • الحُرُّ الحقيقي هو الذي يحمل أثقال العبد المقيّد بصبر وشكر
  • عضو فعال جدا
  • ***
  • مشاركة: 591
    • مشاهدة الملف الشخصي
الموضوع منقول : عبارة قديمة جديدة لمن لا يريد ان يفهم بل فقط ينقل كما يردد الببغاء

طالعنا احدهم تحت اسم msd بمقالة طويلة منقولة فارغة عنونها هرطقة نسطورس، وعندما بدأت بقراءة تلك المقالة والتي لم أكملها لأنني اشمأزيت منها، إستششفت رائحة قلم الكنيسة القبطية التي ما فتئت تعيش في عصور الظلمات وتصرّ على عدم التقدم وتكسر كل وصايا السيد المسيح له المجد الذي دعانا لأن نكون واحداً، فتعلقت هذه الكنيسة بأهداب ثوب المسكين نسطورس وجعلت منه شماعة لحقدها الدفين على ومحاولاتها البائسة للنيل من كنيسة المشرق.

كل هذا لا يهمني ولكن ما يهمني هو ان أقول للمدعو msd قبل ان تنقل ما شئت النقل، قم بالقراءة من مصادر سليمة وصحيحة وعلى الأقل إقرأ لماذا لم تك كنيسة المشرق حاضرة في مجمع أفسس وليس ان تضع تلك المقالة السخيفة التي تذكر بأن كنيسة فارس (لا أدري هل أخافك ان تكتب عبارة كنيسة المشرق فكتبت كنيسة فارس؟ وهل تعرف كل الأسماء التي عرفت بها كنيسة المشرق على مدى القرون التي رزحت فيها تحت نير الحكام المختلفين؟) .

أما كاتب المقالة والذي نقلت عنه فهو الآخر جاهل بالتاريخ لأن كنيسة المشرق او كنيسة فارس او كنيسة ساليق و طسفون لم تكن ممثلة في مجمع افسس فكيف توافق او ترفض ما لم تك شاهدة عليه؟ فهل تشهد شهادة زور كما فعلت باقي الكنائس ضد هذه الكنيسة الأصيلة والعريقة؟

وسوف اضع لك ولكل من يريد ان يتعلم هذه المقالة وهي بالإنكليزية ليطلعوا عليها ويتعلموا وكفى مهاجمة للإيمان الأصيل لكنيسة المشرق والتي هي الكنيسة الوحيدة التي حافظت على تعاليم المسيحية بصفائها كما انتقلت اليها من الرسل.

على أما ان تكون هذه المعلومات بداية لزرع التفكير الصحيح في بعض العقول المريضة ... ومن له أذنان للسمع فليسمع ... ويفقه ...

المقالة مكتوبة بقلم السيد Paul Younan

According to the traditional enemies of the Church of the East, we were in "communion" with the Western Church until we "became Nestorian" after the council of Ephesus.
There are so many loopholes in this theory that only simple-minded or historically-challenged people would actually buy it. It is western propoganda, plain and simple.
First of all, the council of Ephesus was held in the Western empire. It was a council of the Western church. The dispute that arose was between two Western patriarchs - one of Constantinople, and the other one of Alexandria.
Needless to say - the Church of the East was not represented. As is should not have been - because it did not reside in the Roman empire - therefore it was not part of the Roman church, and had no business going to a Roman Church council
Nevertheless, let me also bring out another point. It is claimed by the enemies of the Church of the East that we became independent only after we "espoused Nestorian doctrine"
First of all, as I stated before - Nestorius was not our Patriarch. He was a Greek - the Patriarch of the city of Constantinople and he had nothing to do with us (the Persian Church), as we had nothing to do with him
Second of all, the council of Ephesus (at which we were rightfully not present) was held in 431 A.D
A couple of decades before this Western church council, the Church of the East had held a synod - The Synod of Seleucia (a.k.a, The Synod of Mar Isaac) which met in AD 410. (Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, quoted by Moffett, op.cit.., p.138.) under the presidency of Mar Isaac, the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon)
The most important decision of the Synod which had a very far reaching effect on the life of the church, was to declare the bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (the Persian name for Babylon) as the primate of the Persian church; and in recognition of this preeminence he was given the title Catholicos. The Synod confirmed Mar Isaac as Catholicos and Archbishop of all the Orient
This work was started actually even earlier than AD 410. From the beginning of the fourth century, under the leadership of bishop Papa bar Aggai of Seleucia, there were efforts made to shape a national organization for the Persian church. Papa was fully aware of the need for a strongly centralized Persian church. However, it was only at the beginning of the fifth century, as a result of deliberations by a number of synods, that the re-organization of the Persian church came into effect
Following the synod of Isaac, there were other synods. The most important of them was the Synod of Dad-Yeshua. Towards the end of the reign of Yazdegard, the Christians were again persecuted in AD 420. Dad-Yeshua was elected Catholicos in AD 421 and himself suffered during the persecution and was imprisoned. It was also a troubled time for the church due to internal divisions and parties. It was in such a situation the third synod of the church met
The Synod of Dad-Yeshua met in AD 424 in Markabata of the Arabs under the presidency of Mar Dad-Yeshua. It proved to be one of the most significant of all Persian synods. The first synod of Isaac in AD 410 had decided that the Catholicos of Seleucia Ctesiphon be supreme among the bishops of the East. The Synod of Dad-Yeshua decided that the Catholicos should be the sole head of the Persian church and that no ecclesiastical authority should be acknowledged above him. In particular it was laid down that "easterners shall not complain of their Patriarch to the western Patriarchs; every case that cannot be settled by him shall await the tribunal of Christ." For the first time, this synod referred to the Catholicos as Patriarch and that their Catholicos was answerable to God alone
The Synod declared:

By the word of God we define: The Easterners cannot complain against the Patriarch to western Patriarchs; that every case that cannot be settled in his presence must await the judgement of Christ...(and) on no grounds whatever one can think or say that the Catholicos of the East can be judged by those who are below him, or by a Patriarch equal to him he himself must be the judge of all those beneath him, and he can be judged only by Christ who has chosen him, elevated him and placed him at the head of his church

In the early Catholicate of Timothy I (780-823). the canons of various Church of the East synods were collected into one volume known to us as Synodicon Orientale. The Synodicon Orientale begins with the Synod of Mar Isaac in AD 410, though it is probable that there were gatherings of Persian bishops prior to AD 410. Nevertheless, it is an important historical source for the history of the Persian church
The assembled bishops- six metropolitans and thirty conventional bishops from all over Persia- threw themselves at the feet of the reluctant Dad-Yeshua and vowed him allegiance in terms that unequivocally set apart the church in Asia as free in Christ under its own head the Catholicos, not opposed to the west but equal in rank and authority to any western Patriarchate. This was not an act of schism as some Roman Catholics have interpreted it. (Chabot, Synodicon Orientale, p.296)
What distinguishes the Synod of Dad-Yeshua from the previous Persian synods is that it claimed for the church of the East all the rights of a Patriarchate. Clearly specified among these rights was the privilege of independent administration- not of heresy, or of separation, but of freedom from outside jurisdiction. Moffett is right when he says that there is no reliable evidence of the church outside the Roman empire in Asia ever acknowledging the supremacy of Antioch, much less of Rome or any other western patriarch. The Synod of Dad-Yeshua thus merely made explicit what had long been recognized in practice. To the Persian bishops in the Synod of AD 424, Christians of the west were brothers and sisters in Christ, not separated brethren and sisters. But their jurisdiction as ecclesiastics ended at the Persian border. Persian Asia was beyond western control not by schism, but as a matter of patriarchal privilege. (" See Fortescue, Lesser Eastern Churches, p. 5l -- "From 424 we must date the independence of Persia from Edessa and Antioch. This involves, of course, independence from Antioch’s superior at Rome. So, from the Catholic point of view, it seems that we must date the Persian Church as schismatical since the Synod of Markabta." This is a curious way of argument by a Roman Catholic )
There is no basis whatsoever to the Western claim that we "broke off from them" after we "espoused Nestorian doctrine." Historical fact is something that cannot be changed. As had been plainly demonstrated, both the Councils of Mar Isaac and Mar Dad-Yeshua which were held in the Persian empire (long before the Western council of Ephesus) affirmed the independence of the Church of the East from any other group