The original Church?

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
I'm not in the arguing business, but I have noticed that virtually everything that we do that you guys also do, we have an older version of. Even the so-called "controversial" stuff (which is really just controversial for your church, not ours) like the "addition" to the Trisagion or the way we make the Sign of the Cross, is all explained with reference to earlier sources that show that our way of doing things usually preserves what was done in the East before the establishment of distinct to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Note, for instance, that even Eastern Orthodox web resources like Orthodoxwiki say that the use of more than one finger to make the sign of the Cross is a later development from what was likely the original, one-finger way (which is how we still do it in the OO church). Similar, too, the "addition" to the Trisagion which the EO think is heresy because they do not respect or understand our traditions, nor usually seek to understand them (thank you for being an exception) is reported by writers of antiquity -- OO and EO alike -- to predate the founding of the Eastern Roman Empire itself, so there can be no doubt that this is the original way with reference to Antioch from which it spread. From the OO, we have sources like Zacharias of Mitylene (5th/6th century bishop, historian, and contemporary and biographer of St. Severus of Antioch) who traces the origin of the "thou who wast crucified for us" phrase in the Trisagion to the time of Patriarch Eustathius, who reigned from 325 to 330 AD (recall, the Byzantine Empire itself was only founded c. 330 AD). From the EO, we have people like Chalcedonian Patriarch Ephrem of Amida (d. 545), who recorded of his travels in Antioch that this is was the common tradition of the people of the region, without noting any difference between his Chalcedonian party and the non-Chalcedonians.

These are but two simple examples. And of course I am sure our EO friends would have their own historical sources that they would point to vis-a-vis the particular instances mentioned above, which is fine. What is important is not who crossed themselves which way, or which version of history about the Trisagion is the one that 'really' happened (as if that is even possible to know when both EO and OO say that the prayer came to them by miracles! I refuse to have a 'miracle duel' with anyone), but how we live. I can point to the 6th century inscription found in the Monastery Church of St. Mark, the center of the Syriac Orthodox Church in Jerusalem, that says "This is the house of Mary, mother of John, called Mark. Proclaimed a church by the holy apostles under the name of the Virgin Mary, mother of God, after the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ into heaven. Renewed after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in the year A.D. 73", but I can't make you or anyone believe that what it says is true. And I can show you videos of HE Mor Severus Malki Mourad, the Syriac Orthodox archbishop of Jerusalem, praying the holy qurbono of the Syriac Orthodox Church in the tomb of St. Mary in the closest thing to the language of our Lord that anyone still speaks, but that's not going to have any effect on you if you already think of the Eastern Orthodox as the original, true, first church. You'll say "but the gospels were composed in Greek!" "the liturgy was originally served in Greek at X location!", "X location was a Greek-speaking city at the time of Christ!" And you won't be wrong about any of that. It's just a different way of looking at history, and since neither of us will adopt the other's way, it's silly to fight about it. But if we live in a Christ-like manner, guided by holy fathers who teach us humility and compassion, we will be too busy in prayer and fasting for arguments. And this is best, I think. Even better than being right on the internet.


And yet, since you asked, I do have to say that these are some of the reasons that I think we are the original church. In a more general sense, it is important to note that we never went through a distinct period of "Byzantinization" as the eastern Chalcedonian churches did, so even if you do not believe that the OO are the earlier of the churches, you can still look to us as evidence of how your own church probably worshiped prior to the Byzantinization of the Chalcedonians in the Near East. We know, for instance, that the Syriac language still survived among the Melkites in the Levant and Egypt until maybe a few hundred years ago (I've read everything from the 13th to the 17th centuries, and I don't know who is to be believed about this), and there is plenty of evidence that the Copts and the Melkites probably shared many more liturgical similarities originally than they do now. You can see that by looking up the development of the different forms and usages of the Liturgy of St. Basil among the Christians in Egypt, or for that matter the Basilian canons which govern the Coptic Orthodox Church -- the vast majority of these are particular to the Copts (i.e., have no EO equivalent), but there are also 13 shared with the Melkites (EO), pointing to a common origin in the writings of St. Basil himself, who of course lived before the Chalcedonian schism. Even after the Chalcedonian schism, there is evidence of closeness between us, such as when your Patriarch Timothy III (Salophakiolos, d. 481) got in trouble with the then still-living Latin Pope Leo I for his continued mention of HH St. Dioscoros, the Coptic Patriarch of Egypt, in the diptych of Chalcedonian church of Alexandria. Whoops. :sorry:

So even if we disagree, it is not all bad.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Wryetui

IC XC NIKA
Dec 15, 2014
1,320
255
26
The Carpathian Garden
✟15,670.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I'm not in the arguing business, but I have noticed that virtually everything that we do that you guys also do, we have an older version of. Even the so-called "controversial" stuff (which is really just controversial for your church, not ours) like the "addition" to the Trisagion or the way we make the Sign of the Cross, is all explained with reference to earlier sources that show that our way of doing things usually preserves what was done in the East before the establishment of distinct to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Note, for instance, that even Eastern Orthodox web resources like Orthodoxwiki say that the use of more than one finger to make the sign of the Cross is a later development from what was likely the original, one-finger way (which is how we still do it in the OO church). Similar, too, the "addition" to the Trisagion which the EO think is heresy because they do not respect or understand our traditions, nor usually seek to understand them (thank you for being an exception) is reported by writers of antiquity -- OO and EO alike -- to predate the founding of the Eastern Roman Empire itself, so there can be no doubt that this is the original way with reference to Antioch from which it spread. From the OO, we have sources like Zacharias of Mitylene (5th/6th century bishop, historian, and contemporary and biographer of St. Severus of Antioch) who traces the origin of the "thou who wast crucified for us" phrase in the Trisagion to the time of Patriarch Eustathius, who reigned from 325 to 330 AD (recall, the Byzantine Empire itself was only founded c. 330 AD). From the EO, we have people like Chalcedonian Patriarch Ephrem of Amida (d. 545), who recorded of his travels in Antioch that this is was the common tradition of the people of the region, without noting any difference between his Chalcedonian party and the non-Chalcedonians.

These are but two simple examples. And of course I am sure our EO friends would have their own historical sources that they would point to vis-a-vis the particular instances mentioned above, which is fine. What is important is not who crossed themselves which way, or which version of history about the Trisagion is the one that 'really' happened (as if that is even possible to know when both EO and OO say that the prayer came to them by miracles! I refuse to have a 'miracle duel' with anyone), but how we live. I can point to the 6th century inscription found in the Monastery Church of St. Mark, the center of the Syriac Orthodox Church in Jerusalem, that says "This is the house of Mary, mother of John, called Mark. Proclaimed a church by the holy apostles under the name of the Virgin Mary, mother of God, after the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ into heaven. Renewed after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in the year A.D. 73", but I can't make you or anyone believe that what it says is true. And I can show you videos of HE Mor Severus Malki Mourad, the Syriac Orthodox archbishop of Jerusalem, praying the holy qurbono of the Syriac Orthodox Church in the tomb of St. Mary in the closest thing to the language of our Lord that anyone still speaks, but that's not going to have any effect on you if you already think of the Eastern Orthodox as the original, true, first church. You'll say "but the gospels were composed in Greek!" "the liturgy was originally served in Greek at X location!", "X location was a Greek-speaking city at the time of Christ!" And you won't be wrong about any of that. It's just a different way of looking at history, and since neither of us will adopt the other's way, it's silly to fight about it. But if we live in a Christ-like manner, guided by holy fathers who teach us humility and compassion, we will be too busy in prayer and fasting for arguments. And this is best, I think. Even better than being right on the internet.


And yet, since you asked, I do have to say that these are some of the reasons that I think we are the original church. In a more general sense, it is important to note that we never went through a distinct period of "Byzantinization" as the eastern Chalcedonian churches did, so even if you do not believe that the OO are the earlier of the churches, you can still look to us as evidence of how your own church probably worshiped prior to the Byzantinization of the Chalcedonians in the Near East. We know, for instance, that the Syriac language still survived among the Melkites in the Levant and Egypt until maybe a few hundred years ago (I've read everything from the 13th to the 17th centuries, and I don't know who is to be believed about this), and there is plenty of evidence that the Copts and the Melkites probably shared many more liturgical similarities originally than they do now. You can see that by looking up the development of the different forms and usages of the Liturgy of St. Basil among the Christians in Egypt, or for that matter the Basilian canons which govern the Coptic Orthodox Church -- the vast majority of these are particular to the Copts (i.e., have no EO equivalent), but there are also 13 shared with the Melkites (EO), pointing to a common origin in the writings of St. Basil himself, who of course lived before the Chalcedonian schism. Even after the Chalcedonian schism, there is evidence of closeness between us, such as when your Patriarch Timothy III (Salophakiolos, d. 481) got in trouble with the then still-living Latin Pope Leo I for his continued mention of HH St. Dioscoros, the Coptic Patriarch of Egypt, in the diptych of Chalcedonian church of Alexandria. Whoops. :sorry:

So even if we disagree, it is not all bad.
I also have another question, from your perspective, would you see an union of the two churches possible and soon to happen?
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Possible, yes. Soon to happen, no. We are very stubborn, and while there are some in all of our churches (and some in more churches than others, like among the Armenians and the Syriacs) who see us and the EO as being virtually identical, we also have enough people who can and do appreciate our differences. I personally don't think that this is a bad thing (I am in favor of union with the EO, but of course not on terms dictated to us by anyone; to be frank about it, EO ruled over us in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, etc. for centuries after Chalcedon until the Arabs came, and it was often quite brutal, and yes, we still remember and commemorate some individual episodes, so I believe we are right to be cautious and steadfast in our approach with your church). It is something that can be dealt with in the course of time, but in other ways there might be some unforeseen difficulties, precisely because there's more to being in communion than agreeing on theology or ecclesiology or what have you.

I don't mean to be rude, but I am of the opinion that the Greco-Roman churches (the EO and the RC) are very similar in terms of their cultural mindsets, and this hurts our efforts at reconciliation. Sort of like how the EO often say that Protestantism and Catholicism are two sides of the same coin. Well, from what I've gathered from talking with some EO (including priests involved in EO-OO dialogues), there is not enough of a difference in attitude between how the EO treat and view us and how the RCC treat and view the EO to impress me that it would not be a return to a (softer, gentler, but still ultimately poisonous) post-Chalcedon state of affairs, when Chalcedonian rulers were imposed on our churches and we were dispossessed of our properties and in some cases physically mistreated. We do not want to 'rule' over the EO, but it seems like they want to rule over us, even when they say they don't. That will have to change if we are ever seriously going to consider being in communion. EO who are of the mindset that privileges Constantinople or Greek Antioch over Axum, Coptic Alexandria, or Holy Etchmiadzin will have to recognize what we already know: Orthodoxy does not depend on Constantinople, or Moscow, or any of these places. Your European/Greek Church is fine in its own context, but has no business dictating its norms to Christians who have never been a part of that sphere, do not recognize its councils (perhaps Chalcedon and afterwards will have to be thought of as local councils, binding upon the Greeks and Romans only? I really don't know, but EO have a somewhat different view toward the councils that makes me and other OO I know uncomfortable in some ways), do not use its theological language, etc. I am pleased to say that I have met many EO who are completely fine with this, and seem sincere when they say that they don't see any need nor justification for the EO to demand anything from the OO in terms of changing practices or beliefs, but I have also met enough who say that, and then minutes later go back on it and start saying "Well, of course the sign of the cross should be done in only this (EO) way" or "the Trisagion is and has only ever been a strictly Trinitarian hymn, and anything else is heretical innovation", and when presented with evidence of how they are wrong about this with regard to the traditions surrounding these things as they are among the Syriacs, Copts, Ethiopians, etc. (as I've already mentioned, because our churches have their own histories regarding these things that are different than the received histories of the Byzantine/Constantinopolitan traditions), they have become very dismissive and rude and said that there must be some other explanation for it, or that these differences must've been "allowed" by benevolent Chalcedonian/Greek rulers. This is foolishness. Again, I have spoken with people who claimed to be arch-priests in your church (I don't know how to tell differences in clerical rank in your communion, so I took them at their word) who behaved in this manner. It was shameful and offensive, and quite put me off believing EO when they say they respect diversity or would respect our traditions and practices. I do not think most EO understand it well enough to respect it, unless they have visited enough OO churches to become comfortable with them and the ways that they differ from the EO church, which is much more uniform in its way of being. But there is a knee-jerk reaction among some in your church that sees anything non-Byzantine as heretical by virtue of not being in keeping with Greco-Roman (Greco-Slavic, Greco-Arab, Greco-whatever) ways, and that has to stop if EO actually want to be in communion with us. But it seems quite deeply ingrained.
 
Upvote 0

Wryetui

IC XC NIKA
Dec 15, 2014
1,320
255
26
The Carpathian Garden
✟15,670.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Thank you for your post, I learned a lot and I feel sorry for those episodes you say happened because I didn't knew about them.

Could you tell me some theological differences between our Churches? Because I know they are less than compared with the RCC.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
No one alive today is responsible for what people of their church did in the past, so you have nothing to apologize for. Praise God that the time of hurting each other over Chalcedon is over. We now work together often against common problems, and every EO I personally know is very nice and we get along well. Where I used to live the Greek Orthodox even let the local Coptic people commune in their churches for a few years until we were enough members to get our own priest and establish our own congregation (this was with the full knowledge of the Greek and closest Coptic bishops, of course). I do not mean to implicate the EO for any bad thing that happened in history just because Chalcedonians did it. My point in writing all of that was to say that even though we are still closer to each other than to other churches, we tend to look at some things in different ways.

The theological differences aren't many, from what I can see (it is more a difference in mindset, as I've written). Chalcedon and the discussion of the humanity and divinity of Christ is of course the main one, and there are probably lots of threads about that on this board already. The others are not so big by comparison, but we have different traditions about the Trisagion prayer, we cross ourselves differently (not "like the Latins", though it looks that way to outsiders; truthfully, the Latins crossed themselves like the EO until around the 13th century or so, but the OO have always crossed ourselves from left to right due to a different understanding of what each motion represents), and have different iconography. Some of our customs might be different, but I don't know (it's been many years since I visited an EO church). But even with few strictly theological differences, we would not fit in well with the Byzantine standards, because we have our own canons and such, our chant is very different (you can't fit Coptic or Ethiopian music into the Byzantine octoechos system of 8 tones; people have tried to reconstruct that for the Copts and have failed, and the Ethiopians have their own system that dates back to the 6th century that they have used ever since), and other similar reasons. Just like if someone came into your country and said "Okay, you will all live like Greeks, since your church is in communion with the Greeks." It wouldn't fit well, because Romania has its own culture, language, and history that is different than that of Greece, and must be respected on its own terms. And just like you can't make individual people do that without hurting them and oppressing who they really are, you can't do that to whole churches that have their own histories, languages, cultures, etc. But of course it doesn't stop you from being in communion with the Greeks, right? We would want the same thing. We differ very little in theology, but we need to keep our ways of being and our mindsets, and will not accept being told from an outside party who do not even understand us like the Chalcedonians how what we do is wrong because it's not the same as what they do, so it must be heresy (because they have confused their particular Chalcedonian/Byzantine tradition with all of Orthodoxy, for some reason). It's not wrong just because they don't do it in Eastern Europe, or Constantinople. We do not care about Eastern Europe in that way, and we too have ancient churches in Turkey. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Hello there guys, I am here to learn more about my Oriental brothers. I would like to see some arguments about why do the OO think they are the One, True, Church that Jesus Christ founded.
The OOs seem far more frozen in time when it comes to active practices than the EO - if I may say..

But as another noted best on the matter:


Orthodoxy begins and ends with love, because God is love, and we are in God, and God in us. So in that, we differ from Muslims. We also have correct theology. We need to love. Love does not call falsehood truth, so me and you agree there, but what I am saying is that love does not make reconciliation difficult. Claims of falsehood unsupported do just that, and so, are themselves unorthodox since they sow anger rather than reconciliation. And As Christ says, "He who does not gather with me scatters abroad."

Rejecting a man is not rejecting God. The Armenians had a problem with St. Severus and refused to commemorate him. The Copts had a problem with St. John Chrysostom and he was excommunicated. When we cast him out, we did not cast God out, but we only casted out a misunderstanding of a person. So if casting out a bishop meant casting out the faith, then we casted out Chrysostom, and so, we would have lost the faith as well. Sure we later accepted St. John, and so, one day, maybe the anathemas will be lifted. Let us pray for this day rather than burden each other with claims of heresy.

I would also rather that you did not call St. Leo and St. Flavian as wicked heretics. These are men heavily revered by our EO brothers and sisters. We must respect them. If you would like to be respectful but not giving in, then refrain from using things like "The Holy Dioscoros" or "The wicked Flavian" but chose to be neutral and academic. Say "Dioscoros of Alexandria" and "Flavian of Constantinople."

To say that something is "ultimatley the most Orthodox view" is to claim a monopoly on Orthodoxy, which neither you nor I can do.

Also, as one of my dear brothers whom I've done ministry with noted on the issue when it comes to the ancientness of the Oriental Church:



After getting word that His Holiness Pope Tawadros II will be visiting my parish here in the U.S.A. soon, I thought it appropriate to write this post to inform Copts and non-Copts alike about the eminence of the original papacy: the Coptic papacy.

It all begins with this: whenever anyone (not Coptic) says “The Pope,” who do they mean? The head of the Roman Catholic Church. As for myself, however, whenever I hear/see that title being used to exclusively refer to the Catholic Pontiff, a small part of me cringes in grief at the ignorance.

Why?

Because “The Pope,” for almost one millennium, used to exclusively be understood by all of Christendom (including Rome) to refer to one archbishop, and it wasn’t Rome’s; it was the Archbishop of Alexandria, the head of the Coptic Church. This is not a matter of uninformed, personal bias just because I am Coptic; this is a historical, well-established fact.

My confusion over this came slowly over time as I would attend countless Coptic liturgies and services, and hear or read countless times the title of our Archbishop. We Copts call him “The Pope,” and among us when that title is spoken, we think of only one, and that is our Patriarch of Alexandria. This is deeply ingrained in the Coptic Church and its vernacular, and not just in conversations outside of Church services, but inside as well. We always see the Coptic Church in its liturgical texts and hymns referring to our Archbishop as “Papa Abba ______” or “Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria.” But as I was growing up I kept hearing another receiving that acclaim and title exclusively for themselves, and I wondered why.

Here is the historical truth:

The word Pope is an ancient term originally pronounced papa, and like it sounds, it meant father. Sources often indicate this term originally actually derived from the term ab-aba (or ap-apa); that is, Father of Fathers.

See, initially, all bishops in the Church, most particularly in the Syriac, Coptic, and Ethiopic Churches, were bestowed the title Abba (also meaning Father). The Copts, though, eventually started to refer to the head of all their Abbas (the head of all their bishops) as the Papa. This is said to have begun at least as early as the 13th Pope of Alexandria (c. AD 231—Pope Heraclas [or Theoclas]). In fact, we attribute this date because his successor Pope Dionysius of Alexandria used this title about his predecessor when writing to a Roman priest named Philemon: “I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed Pope, Heraclas.” [τοῦτον ἐγὼ τὸν κανόνα καὶ τὸν τύπον παρὰ τοῦ μακαρίου πάπα ἡμῶν Ἡρακλᾶ παρέλαβον.](Eusebius, History of the Church, 7.7.4)

This is a well-known fact. See what one historian says about the Council of Nicea (AD 325) and Pope Alexander of Alexandria:


He was the bishop, not indeed of the first, but of the most learned see of Christendom. He was known by a title which he alone officially bore in that assembly. He was “the Pope.” “The Pope of Rome” was a phrase which had not yet emerged in history. But “Pope of Alexandria” was a well-known dignity.Papa, that strange and universal mixture of familiar endearment and of reverential awe … was the special address which, long before the names of patriarch or of archbishop, was given to the head of the Alexandrian Church. (Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church, By Arthur Penrhyn Stanley).
Then, at some point around the 11th century (although some sources say the 7th), the head bishop of Rome appropriated the title for himself. It makes sense, as the primacy of Rome over all of Christianity was a consistent point that Rome tried to impress on all other jurisdictions, and which contributed to the Great Schism around this time.

The bishops themselves bestow the title Abba more eminently on the Patriarch of Alexandria, which occasioned the people to give him that of Baba or Papa, that is, Grandfather, the Father of the Fathers; a title which he bore before it was bestowed on the Bishops of Rome, for the name of Pope was not exclusively appropriated by them until the close of the eleventh century. It is now conjoined with supreme authority, the Pope being the head of the Roman Church; so much so, that the Catholic Religion is termed Popery, and has its adjective and adverb Popish and Popishly. A member of the [Catholic] Church is called a Papist. (An analytical dictionary of the English language, By David Booth)
Today, there are only two archbishops of the ancient Church that are titled pope: the archbishop of Alexandria, and that of Rome (although, the Greek Church, after the separation between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, placed an archbishop in Alexandria as well and appropriated for him the title of Pope as well, since it was the historical Alexandrian title). Even the Merriam-Webster dictionary gets this one mostly right:



Next time you hear someone refer to “the Pope,” know that there used to only be ONE, and now there are TWO.

If you are Coptic, be proud of the history of your Church.

(Note: In no way am I intending to disrespect the Catholic Church or its archbishop, but simply bringing attention to history. The relationship between the Coptic and Catholic Churches have been very cordial in recent times, and I pray they continue to progress in a positive direction.)

_______________________________
 
Upvote 0