- Jan 18, 2016
- 533
- 515
- 48
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Republican
In another thread which is locked right now, someone wrote about the Coptic Pope
"he is Coptic, so not Orthodox. you meant Theodoros"
At a minimum, ecumenical courtesy compels us to refer to the Copts as Oriental Orthodox, for the same reason we call Roman Catholics Roman Catholics despite the fact that our church is more authentically Roman and more authentically Catholic.
But, this is inadequete, for even that concession to civility fails to capture the current very warm state of ecumenical relations between the Greek and Coptic Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria.
His Beatitude the Greek Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria All Africa and His Holiness the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria have a very close ecumenical relationship established by their predeccessprs in the 1990s (Pope Shenouda died in 2012, and Pope Petros VI was tragically killed in a helicopter crash in 2004).
Interestinfly, Pope Theodoros II and Pope Tawadros II have the same name, Tawadros being Coptic for Theodore. I believe this is providential coincidence, and I pray that these two Popes will be the last separated popes of the Church of Alexandria, and there is good reason to believe this is the case.
Since the 1990s, Coptic and Alexandrian Orthodox have been permitted to marry. The churches had previously stopped anathematizing each other in the 1960s. If a Copt marries an Alexandrian, they can both receive communion in whichever parish is convenient for them.
This is really beneficial, because in Egypt, there are many Coptic parishes but few Alexandrian parishes. Elsewhere in Africa, there are many Alexandrian and Coptic parishes due to missionary work, and there is probably a preponderance of Alexandrian parishes in South Africa due to the Greek emigre community.
Also, as a rule, in Egypt, most Coptic priests will communicate Alexandrians and vice versa. i have also heard reliable reports of Coptic pilgrims to the Monastery of St. Catharine of Sinai, which is under the omophorion of the Archbishophric of Sinai, the smallest autonomous* church in the Eastern Orthodox Communion, in turn subordinate to the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, receiving the Eucharist.
To my knowledge, the level of intercommunion is not as formal or solidified as that between the Antiochian and Syriac Orthodox, who in the Middle East can communicate at each others churches (unfortunately not in the US, but remember, the AOCNA is both autonomous, and also largely comprised of converts, who tend to be much more hostile to the Oriental Orthodox than most cradle Orthodox, due an admirable zeal for the Seven Councils which is, I think, misplaced (since the idea that the Seven Councils are in absolutely and in every respect infallible is really a 20th century innovation; the historical view is that they are dogmatically definitive, but not absolutely infallible, which is why we ignore Canon XX of Nicea on Pentecost (some people claim the kneeling service is a vespers, but technically, its not). If you perform a Metania on a Sunday or Feast Day, you have violated the canons of Nicea.
However, there is no doubt that the councils are dogmatically definitive, and the restoration of communion with the Oriental Orthodox is happening because of a realization that their miaphysite Christology is simpy that of St. Cyril as expressed at Ephesus. It need not be read in opposition to the Tome of Leo. Indeed, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy ran a somewhat anti-OO post by Nicholas Marinides claimimg Chalcedon was a victory for St. Cyril, not Pope Leo. Well, if that is true, it simply further proves the essential unity that exists between Easterns and Orientals, because the Oriental Orthodox are committed to the Christology of St. Leo, and as most of our bishops and I think most of the cradle Orthodox who have an interest are now aware, Chalcedon is a viable way of expressing the Miaphysite Christology of St. Cyril, and vice versa.
The real test of Christological Orthodoxy is the hymn "Ho Monoges", inserted into the Eastern Orthodox liturgy by St. Justinian. This hymn features in the Paschal liturgy of the Coptic Church, and in the Syriac Orthodox Church, is the very first hymn sung during the Divine Liturgy (which I very much like; I think one of the few reforms of our Byzantine Rite liturgy that I could support would be separating Ho Monoges from the Second Antiphon, placing it in between the Great Ektenia and the First Antiphon).
Now, the interesting thing about Ho Monoges is that it was in fact written by Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch. Severus also wrote the first Presanctified Liturgy, which fell out of use in the Syriac Orthodox Church, but which has been revived recently, and which is clearly the prototype for the later Chalcedonian Presanctified Liturgy of St. James (served recently for the first time in probably centuries at Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville, which does brilliant liturgics), and which is in turn the clear template for the Presanctified Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory Diologos. Tragically, Pope Pius XII severely modified the Good Friday presanctified mass in 1955; before that time, however, the Roman Catholic Good Friday mass and our Presanctified Liturgy looked, as one might expect, very similiar (I think if we restore communion with Rome we should mandate a restoration of the Good Friday Mass of the Presanctified to its ancient, pre-1950s form, and by the way, we aren't talking Novus Ordo here, but rather, the sweeping changes to the Paschal Triduum made by Pius XII in the 1950s which made the Roman Catholic services on Holy Saturday look, for the first time in recorded history, nothing like their Orthodox equivalent, and which really set the stage for the later degeneration of that church).
But I digress. It was Severus who developed the Presanctified Mass, and it was Severus who penned the definitive statement of Christological Orthodoxy, the Ho Monoges.
St. Justinian made a huge contribution to Eastern Orthodoxy by insisting on Theopaschitism as expressed in the Ho Monoges, and inserting this into the EO liturgy. He and his OO wife, St. Theodora, tried very hard to bring about reunion, but there was another problem, an error in St. Justinian's own theology: apthartodocetism. This error was condemned by Severus, and I believe it was the forerrunner to Monothelitism, just as Origen's views on Christology may have inadvertantly inspired Arius. Not a major heresy, not worth anathematizing anyone over, but, heresiogenic (of course Origen was anathematized, but the real issue there was his reincarnation belief and other very strange doctrines; Theodore of Mopsuestia had some weird ideas also, although I wish St. Justinian had anathematized their errors rather than their persons, since both died in the peace of the Church, and the anathema of Theodore caused a nasty schism in the West, the Three Chapters Controversy, which I think led to a breakdown in civil society which facilitated the later Islamic conquest of North Africa and Spain, and the ethnic cleansing of the North African Christians).
So, by introducing a hymn written by an Oriental Orthodox Patriarch, St. Justinian saved Eastern Orthodoxy from the pernicious infouence of crypto-Nestorians like Theodoret. And in turn, the Eastern Orthodox Church, when it came to the one major error made by St. Justinian, sided with Severus and rejected apthartodocetism using arguments identical to those used by the Antiochene Patriarch.
So where does this leave us? One of the most important contributors to Eastern Orthodox theology, more important than Origen, not recognized as a saint, whereas meanwhile, we managed to glorify St. Isaac the Syrian, who is a beautiful poet, but who happened to be both a universalist and a Nestorian (the attempts by John Sandipolous and others to challenge the scholarship of Sebastian Brock are not credible).
Nor have EO-OO relations always been fraught. there were many periods in the first millenia where the two churches drifted in and out of communion on a local level. In the 19th century, the Coptic and Greek Popes of Alexandria attempted to unite into a single Egyptian Orthodox Church, but were overruled by the Albanian Muslim Khedive, who feared the political power of a united Christian church.
There were actual monophysites, followers of Eutyches, and Dioscorus did err by defending him (the Oriental Orthodox later anathematized him). The worst of these were the Tritheists and the Acephali, described by St. John of Damascus. St. John was unaware that John Philoponus was, and is, regarded as a heretic by the Coptic Church.
The Oriental Orthodox have one other glorious crown: unlike us, on no occasion did an OO autocephalous church ever embrace iconoclasm. The Oriental Orthodox are the most faithful defenders of the Holy Icons, historically speaking (since we for a time did fail, in Constantinople, until the glorious Triumph of Orthodoxy in 843 enforced the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Council).
The Orientals were severel persecuted, and much of their spiritual writing is obscure and poorly known even among their faithful. There is great treasure. They never had to deal with a Barlaam, and as a result never were forced into dogmatically defining the Essence/Energies distimction, although OO theologians I know have been thrilled to receice the works of St. Gregory Palamas and have recovered an exciting Patristic corroboration of Palamas, in the form of is/partake. So this new school of Coptic Palamists views the Divine Energies as that which we partake of, and the Divine Essence as that which God is. This directly proves the Roman Catholic and Protestant accusation that Palamas was an innovator false, by clearly showing an ancient Patristic basis for it. This I believe will be the first of many exciting fruits of theological research to grow from the impending reunion of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy.
There is one last question which might trouble some. During all these years of schism, which one was the Church? We don't need to resort to invisible church or branch ecclesiology; we can say both, there merely having been an internal political rupture.
Let's think about this for a moment: throughout the history of the Orthodox Church there have been vast numbers of schisms, most of them healed. Most recently, the restoration of communion between ROCOR, which was completely isolated canonically from the rest of Orthodoxy, and the Moscow Patriarchate. During that long schism, which one was the Church? Was it ROCOR and the handful of Old Calendarists they were in communion with? Or was it the MP, the EP and all the churches in communion with Moscow? To me, the answer is obvious: both were the Church; there was simply a political rift between bishops.
It is only when a schism does not heal, or becomes beyond healing, that the separated portion of the church ceases to be the Church. I believe that this is primarily eschatological, although cases have also happened where heterodox have become Orthodox and ended schisms that way. The high church Anglicans who became the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate probably were not part of the Church before their reception. The Holy Order of Mans...certainly not.
So, let's conclude with this. Right now, Antiochian, Armenian, Syriac, Alexandrian, Jerusalemite, Sinaian, and Coptic Orthodox Christians are dying together in the Middle East, the victims of a horrible genocide waged not just by ISIL, but by evil regimes like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others, who have been financing this murder of Christians.
In the Soviet Union, Armenians and Russian and Georgian Orthodox were persecuted together. And in the Turkish Genocide, Armenians, Pontic Greeks, Syriac Orthodox and other Christians all died together.
Our schism with the Roman Catholic church is complicated by increasingly liberal bishops, liturgical chaos, and doctrinal difficulties. Reconciliation with the Church of the East is tricky due to their refusal to call our most holy, glorious and radiant Virgin Mother the Theotokos, and their veneration of Nestorius (although strictly speaking, their Christology as outlined by Mar Babai is not really incompatible with Chalcedon).
However, in the case of the Oriental Orthodox, their leading theologian, Severus of Antioch, wrote our most important Christological hymn, developed the concept of the Presanctified Liturgy,mlaid the groundwork for the Byzantine acceptance of Theopaschitism under St. Justinian, and at the same time, where St. Justinian made a minor theological error, provided the theological arguments we wound up using.
The Oriental Orthodox never gave into iconoclasm. An attempt in the 8th century to introduce it in Eastern Armenia was crushed by the bishops of that church.
The Oriental Orthodox have helped us prove the apostolic authenticity of Palamism, which will be vital in converting the Western Christians to Orthodoxy.
On several occasions, communion has been intermittently restored. The only reason there are two Popes of Alexandria and not one is due to an evil Islamic dictator playing divide and conquer in the mid 19th century.
As of today, in Syria and the Middle East, Syriac and Antiochian Orthodox can receive the Eucharist in each other's churches, officially. Unofficially, Copts, Alexandrians and the Church of Sinai appear to grant the same privileges. And Alexandrians and Copts can get married and receive the Eucharist in whichever church is convenient.
So let's go all the way and end this schism. Let there be one reunited Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Church, with full intercommunion, united in the Christology of St. Cyril. Let's glorify Severus. Let's do what Sts. Justinian and Theodora tried to do, what the Coptic and Greek popes tried to do, and whar most of our faithful in the Middle East want to do, and end this pointless, destructive schism.
*An autonomous church is one that is self-governing but not autocephalous. The primate of an autonomous church is elected by the Holy Synod of the parent autocephalous church. Examples of autonomous churches include ROCOR, and the churches of Finland, Sinai, Japan, Estonia, the Ukraine (MP), Moldova, Latvia (MP) and others.
"he is Coptic, so not Orthodox. you meant Theodoros"
At a minimum, ecumenical courtesy compels us to refer to the Copts as Oriental Orthodox, for the same reason we call Roman Catholics Roman Catholics despite the fact that our church is more authentically Roman and more authentically Catholic.
But, this is inadequete, for even that concession to civility fails to capture the current very warm state of ecumenical relations between the Greek and Coptic Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria.
His Beatitude the Greek Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria All Africa and His Holiness the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria have a very close ecumenical relationship established by their predeccessprs in the 1990s (Pope Shenouda died in 2012, and Pope Petros VI was tragically killed in a helicopter crash in 2004).
Interestinfly, Pope Theodoros II and Pope Tawadros II have the same name, Tawadros being Coptic for Theodore. I believe this is providential coincidence, and I pray that these two Popes will be the last separated popes of the Church of Alexandria, and there is good reason to believe this is the case.
Since the 1990s, Coptic and Alexandrian Orthodox have been permitted to marry. The churches had previously stopped anathematizing each other in the 1960s. If a Copt marries an Alexandrian, they can both receive communion in whichever parish is convenient for them.
This is really beneficial, because in Egypt, there are many Coptic parishes but few Alexandrian parishes. Elsewhere in Africa, there are many Alexandrian and Coptic parishes due to missionary work, and there is probably a preponderance of Alexandrian parishes in South Africa due to the Greek emigre community.
Also, as a rule, in Egypt, most Coptic priests will communicate Alexandrians and vice versa. i have also heard reliable reports of Coptic pilgrims to the Monastery of St. Catharine of Sinai, which is under the omophorion of the Archbishophric of Sinai, the smallest autonomous* church in the Eastern Orthodox Communion, in turn subordinate to the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, receiving the Eucharist.
To my knowledge, the level of intercommunion is not as formal or solidified as that between the Antiochian and Syriac Orthodox, who in the Middle East can communicate at each others churches (unfortunately not in the US, but remember, the AOCNA is both autonomous, and also largely comprised of converts, who tend to be much more hostile to the Oriental Orthodox than most cradle Orthodox, due an admirable zeal for the Seven Councils which is, I think, misplaced (since the idea that the Seven Councils are in absolutely and in every respect infallible is really a 20th century innovation; the historical view is that they are dogmatically definitive, but not absolutely infallible, which is why we ignore Canon XX of Nicea on Pentecost (some people claim the kneeling service is a vespers, but technically, its not). If you perform a Metania on a Sunday or Feast Day, you have violated the canons of Nicea.
However, there is no doubt that the councils are dogmatically definitive, and the restoration of communion with the Oriental Orthodox is happening because of a realization that their miaphysite Christology is simpy that of St. Cyril as expressed at Ephesus. It need not be read in opposition to the Tome of Leo. Indeed, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy ran a somewhat anti-OO post by Nicholas Marinides claimimg Chalcedon was a victory for St. Cyril, not Pope Leo. Well, if that is true, it simply further proves the essential unity that exists between Easterns and Orientals, because the Oriental Orthodox are committed to the Christology of St. Leo, and as most of our bishops and I think most of the cradle Orthodox who have an interest are now aware, Chalcedon is a viable way of expressing the Miaphysite Christology of St. Cyril, and vice versa.
The real test of Christological Orthodoxy is the hymn "Ho Monoges", inserted into the Eastern Orthodox liturgy by St. Justinian. This hymn features in the Paschal liturgy of the Coptic Church, and in the Syriac Orthodox Church, is the very first hymn sung during the Divine Liturgy (which I very much like; I think one of the few reforms of our Byzantine Rite liturgy that I could support would be separating Ho Monoges from the Second Antiphon, placing it in between the Great Ektenia and the First Antiphon).
Now, the interesting thing about Ho Monoges is that it was in fact written by Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch. Severus also wrote the first Presanctified Liturgy, which fell out of use in the Syriac Orthodox Church, but which has been revived recently, and which is clearly the prototype for the later Chalcedonian Presanctified Liturgy of St. James (served recently for the first time in probably centuries at Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville, which does brilliant liturgics), and which is in turn the clear template for the Presanctified Liturgy of Pope St. Gregory Diologos. Tragically, Pope Pius XII severely modified the Good Friday presanctified mass in 1955; before that time, however, the Roman Catholic Good Friday mass and our Presanctified Liturgy looked, as one might expect, very similiar (I think if we restore communion with Rome we should mandate a restoration of the Good Friday Mass of the Presanctified to its ancient, pre-1950s form, and by the way, we aren't talking Novus Ordo here, but rather, the sweeping changes to the Paschal Triduum made by Pius XII in the 1950s which made the Roman Catholic services on Holy Saturday look, for the first time in recorded history, nothing like their Orthodox equivalent, and which really set the stage for the later degeneration of that church).
But I digress. It was Severus who developed the Presanctified Mass, and it was Severus who penned the definitive statement of Christological Orthodoxy, the Ho Monoges.
St. Justinian made a huge contribution to Eastern Orthodoxy by insisting on Theopaschitism as expressed in the Ho Monoges, and inserting this into the EO liturgy. He and his OO wife, St. Theodora, tried very hard to bring about reunion, but there was another problem, an error in St. Justinian's own theology: apthartodocetism. This error was condemned by Severus, and I believe it was the forerrunner to Monothelitism, just as Origen's views on Christology may have inadvertantly inspired Arius. Not a major heresy, not worth anathematizing anyone over, but, heresiogenic (of course Origen was anathematized, but the real issue there was his reincarnation belief and other very strange doctrines; Theodore of Mopsuestia had some weird ideas also, although I wish St. Justinian had anathematized their errors rather than their persons, since both died in the peace of the Church, and the anathema of Theodore caused a nasty schism in the West, the Three Chapters Controversy, which I think led to a breakdown in civil society which facilitated the later Islamic conquest of North Africa and Spain, and the ethnic cleansing of the North African Christians).
So, by introducing a hymn written by an Oriental Orthodox Patriarch, St. Justinian saved Eastern Orthodoxy from the pernicious infouence of crypto-Nestorians like Theodoret. And in turn, the Eastern Orthodox Church, when it came to the one major error made by St. Justinian, sided with Severus and rejected apthartodocetism using arguments identical to those used by the Antiochene Patriarch.
So where does this leave us? One of the most important contributors to Eastern Orthodox theology, more important than Origen, not recognized as a saint, whereas meanwhile, we managed to glorify St. Isaac the Syrian, who is a beautiful poet, but who happened to be both a universalist and a Nestorian (the attempts by John Sandipolous and others to challenge the scholarship of Sebastian Brock are not credible).
Nor have EO-OO relations always been fraught. there were many periods in the first millenia where the two churches drifted in and out of communion on a local level. In the 19th century, the Coptic and Greek Popes of Alexandria attempted to unite into a single Egyptian Orthodox Church, but were overruled by the Albanian Muslim Khedive, who feared the political power of a united Christian church.
There were actual monophysites, followers of Eutyches, and Dioscorus did err by defending him (the Oriental Orthodox later anathematized him). The worst of these were the Tritheists and the Acephali, described by St. John of Damascus. St. John was unaware that John Philoponus was, and is, regarded as a heretic by the Coptic Church.
The Oriental Orthodox have one other glorious crown: unlike us, on no occasion did an OO autocephalous church ever embrace iconoclasm. The Oriental Orthodox are the most faithful defenders of the Holy Icons, historically speaking (since we for a time did fail, in Constantinople, until the glorious Triumph of Orthodoxy in 843 enforced the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Council).
The Orientals were severel persecuted, and much of their spiritual writing is obscure and poorly known even among their faithful. There is great treasure. They never had to deal with a Barlaam, and as a result never were forced into dogmatically defining the Essence/Energies distimction, although OO theologians I know have been thrilled to receice the works of St. Gregory Palamas and have recovered an exciting Patristic corroboration of Palamas, in the form of is/partake. So this new school of Coptic Palamists views the Divine Energies as that which we partake of, and the Divine Essence as that which God is. This directly proves the Roman Catholic and Protestant accusation that Palamas was an innovator false, by clearly showing an ancient Patristic basis for it. This I believe will be the first of many exciting fruits of theological research to grow from the impending reunion of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy.
There is one last question which might trouble some. During all these years of schism, which one was the Church? We don't need to resort to invisible church or branch ecclesiology; we can say both, there merely having been an internal political rupture.
Let's think about this for a moment: throughout the history of the Orthodox Church there have been vast numbers of schisms, most of them healed. Most recently, the restoration of communion between ROCOR, which was completely isolated canonically from the rest of Orthodoxy, and the Moscow Patriarchate. During that long schism, which one was the Church? Was it ROCOR and the handful of Old Calendarists they were in communion with? Or was it the MP, the EP and all the churches in communion with Moscow? To me, the answer is obvious: both were the Church; there was simply a political rift between bishops.
It is only when a schism does not heal, or becomes beyond healing, that the separated portion of the church ceases to be the Church. I believe that this is primarily eschatological, although cases have also happened where heterodox have become Orthodox and ended schisms that way. The high church Anglicans who became the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate probably were not part of the Church before their reception. The Holy Order of Mans...certainly not.
So, let's conclude with this. Right now, Antiochian, Armenian, Syriac, Alexandrian, Jerusalemite, Sinaian, and Coptic Orthodox Christians are dying together in the Middle East, the victims of a horrible genocide waged not just by ISIL, but by evil regimes like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others, who have been financing this murder of Christians.
In the Soviet Union, Armenians and Russian and Georgian Orthodox were persecuted together. And in the Turkish Genocide, Armenians, Pontic Greeks, Syriac Orthodox and other Christians all died together.
Our schism with the Roman Catholic church is complicated by increasingly liberal bishops, liturgical chaos, and doctrinal difficulties. Reconciliation with the Church of the East is tricky due to their refusal to call our most holy, glorious and radiant Virgin Mother the Theotokos, and their veneration of Nestorius (although strictly speaking, their Christology as outlined by Mar Babai is not really incompatible with Chalcedon).
However, in the case of the Oriental Orthodox, their leading theologian, Severus of Antioch, wrote our most important Christological hymn, developed the concept of the Presanctified Liturgy,mlaid the groundwork for the Byzantine acceptance of Theopaschitism under St. Justinian, and at the same time, where St. Justinian made a minor theological error, provided the theological arguments we wound up using.
The Oriental Orthodox never gave into iconoclasm. An attempt in the 8th century to introduce it in Eastern Armenia was crushed by the bishops of that church.
The Oriental Orthodox have helped us prove the apostolic authenticity of Palamism, which will be vital in converting the Western Christians to Orthodoxy.
On several occasions, communion has been intermittently restored. The only reason there are two Popes of Alexandria and not one is due to an evil Islamic dictator playing divide and conquer in the mid 19th century.
As of today, in Syria and the Middle East, Syriac and Antiochian Orthodox can receive the Eucharist in each other's churches, officially. Unofficially, Copts, Alexandrians and the Church of Sinai appear to grant the same privileges. And Alexandrians and Copts can get married and receive the Eucharist in whichever church is convenient.
So let's go all the way and end this schism. Let there be one reunited Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Church, with full intercommunion, united in the Christology of St. Cyril. Let's glorify Severus. Let's do what Sts. Justinian and Theodora tried to do, what the Coptic and Greek popes tried to do, and whar most of our faithful in the Middle East want to do, and end this pointless, destructive schism.
*An autonomous church is one that is self-governing but not autocephalous. The primate of an autonomous church is elected by the Holy Synod of the parent autocephalous church. Examples of autonomous churches include ROCOR, and the churches of Finland, Sinai, Japan, Estonia, the Ukraine (MP), Moldova, Latvia (MP) and others.
Last edited:
