Copts are Orthodox too

[ArmyMatt]

Nice have to look into it, I leave it all up to God

amen

 

[Commander Xenophon]

that was me who said that, and I won't call someone Orthodox for the sake of ecumenical politeness.

So what do you call members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church? Or Orthodox Jews?

But seriously, the OOs are Orthodox. They are as Orthodox as the Eastern Orthodox. They alone avoided falling into the trap of iconoclasm.

The only reason we are not in communion now is because of the Albanian Khedive who ruled Egypt. but we have limited intercommunion, which is a start.

we cannot glorify Severus who was named and anathematized by name at an ecumenical council.

Sure we can. The idea that every word of the ecumenical councils are infallible is disproven every time you perform a Metania on a Sunday or Feast Day, since according to Canon XX of Nicea, you can't do that.

The councils are a component of Holy Tradition, but only Tradition is infallible.

St Junstinian refers to him as a heretic in his writings.

And inserts his hymn, the Ho Monoges, into our Divine Liturgy.

so, no

and I would add, a Coptic Deacon got into a debate with Fr John Behr, about how reunion cannot occur since Copts don't have Palamism like we do.

I am aware of the incident. The man in question was not a full deacon, but a reader (there are very few full deacons in the Coptic Orthodox Church).

But that's also a red herring. I can find Eastern Orthodox readers who say that Copts are polytheist pagans.

One reader trolling Fr. John Behr does not negate the very serious work going on between the EO and OO bishops.

In fact, SVS, which is the leading Orthodox seminary worldwide (although I will say STS is good, but SVS really has an unbelievable academic program, better than anything in the "old country" or in Europe, even) has published a position paper clearly outlining the case for reunion and the challenges to be faced. SVS has Seminarians from all of the Oriental Orthodox churches and has an extremely close partnership with St. Nerses Seminary.

we cannot just roll back to Ephesus,

We don't have to roll back to Ephesus.

The formula for reconciliation is simple: we agree that Chalcedon is a valid expression of the Christology of St. Cyril, if and only if the liturgy contains the hymn "Ho Monoges" and the principle of Theopaschitism is upheld.

they must accept all Councils after Ephesus,

Why should they? They reject universalism and the other heresies dealt with at the Fifth council (which wasn't really a council, by the way). They reject monothelitism and monergism. They reject iconoclasm.

In fact, unlike the Church of Constantinople, they never fell prey to these heresies. This is because unlike the Byzantine Church, they were not subject to overbearing Emperors who sought to abuse their churches for political purposes.

Now, some EO churches also stayed free from heresy. The Romanian Patriarch wears a white zostikon and exorason in commemoration of the fact that his church has never fallen into heresy (and he supports reunion with the OO).

However it is an embarassment that our Ecumenical Patriarchate did embrace monothelitism and iconoclasm, and it took much suffering and prayer on the part of the heroic monks of Studios to get that stopped.

which includes anathematizing Severus, removing Dioscorus from the calendar, etc.

There is no reason to anathematize Severus; there is a compelling reason to glorify him. In the case of Dioscorus, if you read the minutes of Chalcedon, it is evident he was mistreated, but if you read the minutes of Ephesus II, it is evident that in his treatment of Ibas, who was a bona fide Nestorian, and who the Chalcedonian fathers did, to their huge discredit, declare completely Orthodox, Dioscorus was also heavy handed.

So the solution is simple: the Oriental Orthodox already venerate St. John Damascene as a saint. We have them add St. Justinian to that list. In return, we venerate Severus as a saint, declaring him glorified.

St. Leo would continue to be venerated in our churches, and Dioscorus in theirs, as local saints.

We should also cancel the anathemas on Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, in the interests of fairness.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

well of course, I would love them to unite with us, but it must be done properly. their services are beautiful and their piety is off the chart. but that does not change what the ecumenical councils say, which are not up for discussion.

The idea that the ecumenical councils are in very word infallible is pure theological modernism. Aside feom the Canon XX example I mentioned, there are many other issues where we ignore theor anathemas.

For example, Ephesus demands we anathematize any who refuse to venerate Mary as Theotokos, yet we venerate St. Isaac the Syrian.

Chalcedon demands we anathematize the Oriental Orthodox, but our canonical churches give them communion and permit them to intermarry with us, and our bishops are in close dialogue with them.

The Councils are only binding dogmatically, and on all issues of dogma, the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are in alignment. They even reject the filioque!

 

[ArmyMatt]

So what do you call members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church? Or Orthodox Jews?

But seriously, the OOs are Orthodox. They are as Orthodox as the Eastern Orthodox. They alone avoided falling into the trap of iconoclasm.

The only reason we are not in communion now is because of the Albanian Khedive who ruled Egypt. but we have limited intercommunion, which is a start.



Sure we can. The idea that every word of the ecumenical councils are infallible is disproven every time you perform a Metania on a Sunday or Feast Day, since according to Canon XX of Nicea, you can't do that.

The councils are a component of Holy Tradition, but only Tradition is infallible.



And inserts his hymn, the Ho Monoges, into our Divine Liturgy.



I am aware of the incident. The man in question was not a full deacon, but a reader (there are very few full deacons in the Coptic Orthodox Church).

But that's also a red herring. I can find Eastern Orthodox readers who say that Copts are polytheist pagans.

One reader trolling Fr. John Behr does not negate the very serious work going on between the EO and OO bishops.

In fact, SVS, which is the leading Orthodox seminary worldwide (although I will say STS is good, but SVS really has an unbelievable academic program, better than anything in the "old country" or in Europe, even) has published a position paper clearly outlining the case for reunion and the challenges to be faced. SVS has Seminarians from all of the Oriental Orthodox churches and has an extremely close partnership with St. Nerses Seminary.



We don't have to roll back to Ephesus.

The formula for reconciliation is simple:

we're not talking about canons, we are talking about synodal statements. the former can be changed, the latter cannot.

so they are not Orthodox until they accept Chalcedon and subsequent councils, which means Severus is to be anathematized. Tradition says he is a heretic.

and I would not call SVS the top tier. I have one buddy who goes there and has to detox every break, another who is convinced a teacher is Arian, etc

 

[ArmyMatt]

and I am of the camp that thinks St Isaac was not Nestorian.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Councils are only binding dogmatically, and on all issues of dogma, the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are in alignment. They even reject the filioque!

and some of their heirarchs reject Christ has two wills and two energies. plus Councils after Chalcedon anathematize them

 

[Commander Xenophon]

well of course, I would love them to unite with us, but it must be done properly. their services are beautiful and their piety is off the chart.

So are you saying the Patriarch of Antioch and the Pope of Alexandria, among others, are doing it "improperly"?

The Antiochian Orthodox pray for the abducted Syriac Orthodox Archbishop of Aleppo along with his Antiochian counterpart at every liturgy. I'm pretty sure there are canons against that.

Also, did our Lord not say "by their fruit ye shall know them?" If the piety of the OO is off the chart, if their services are beautiful, and if major Orthodox theologians and autocephalous Patriarchs, such as Ignatius IV, memory eternal, can sign agreements establishing a framework for full reunion with their OO counterparts, then our Lord's commandment "That they should all be one," applies.

Remember what St. Clement said: schism is worse than heresy.

The Eastern Orthodox tolerated the Roman Church teaching the filioque and deviating fairly substantially from our teaching for about 200 years before a Papal legate excommunicated the Ecumenical Patriarch.

This suggests a clear precedent whereby minor doctrinal differences can be tolerated in the name of unity.

But in the case of the OOs, there are far less in the way of doctrinal differences, frankly, than exist between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Moscow or Georgia.

The new claim by His Eminence the Metropolitan of Bursa that the Ecumenical Patriarch is "first without equals" amounts to Papalism, and represents a huge departure from the Orthodox tradition of synodical, comciliar polity and the equality of bishops.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

and I am of the camp that thinks St Isaac was not Nestorian.

All manuscript evidence suggests otherwise.

It also doesn't help that the Nestorians have always venerated him as a saint, and have published their own manuscript editions of his works.

Sebastian Brock is a serious scholar, not a hack.

 

[ArmyMatt]

All manuscript evidence suggests otherwise.

not from what I have been taught.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

and some of their heirarchs reject Christ has two wills and two energies.

They say he has a human and divine will, and a human and divine energy. This is a logical extrapolation of the miaphysis Christology advocated by St. Cyril.

None of them say he had a divine will or a divine energy only, which would ne monergism and monothelitism.

plus Councils after Chalcedon anathematize them

Irrelevant, because they also anathematize Nestorians, and we venerate at least one Nestorian.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

not from what I have been taught.

John Sandipoulous is not a serious scholar or Syriologist. Sebastian Brock is.

if they are actually at STS teaching their students that Sebastian Brock is wrong, well, that's pretty shocking.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So are you saying the Patriarch of Antioch and the Pope of Alexandria, among others, are doing it "improperly"?

The Antiochian Orthodox pray for the abducted Syriac Orthodox Archbishop of Aleppo along with his Antiochian counterpart at every liturgy. I'm pretty sure there are canons against that.

Also, did our Lord not say "by their fruit ye shall know them?" If the piety of the OO is off the chart, if their services are beautiful, and if major Orthodox theologians and autocephalous Patriarchs, such as Ignatius IV, memory eternal, can sign agreements establishing a framework for full reunion with their OO counterparts, then our Lord's commandment "That they should all be one," applies.

Remember what St. Clement said: schism is worse than heresy.

The Eastern Orthodox tolerated the Roman Church teaching the filioque and deviating fairly substantially from our teaching for about 200 years before a Papal legate excommunicated the Ecumenical Patriarch.

This suggests a clear precedent whereby minor doctrinal differences can be tolerated in the name of unity.

But in the case of the OOs, there are far less in the way of doctrinal differences, frankly, than exist between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Moscow or Georgia.

The new claim by His Eminence the Metropolitan of Bursa that the Ecumenical Patriarch is "first without equals" amounts to Papalism, and represents a huge departure from the Orthodox tradition of synodical, comciliar polity and the equality of bishops.

I do want to be one with them, but only after they accept what must be accepted. not before. my Anglican grandmother puts me to shame, but that does not mean Anglicanism is true.

it is not my place to correct a bishop, but I will say that a bishop who taught me says they are.

 

[ArmyMatt]

They say he has a human and divine will, and a human and divine energy. This is a logical extrapolation of the miaphysis Christology advocated by St. Cyril.

None of them say he had a divine will or a divine energy only, which would ne monergism and monothelitism.



Irrelevant, because they also anathematize Nestorians, and we venerate at least one Nestorian.

Severus was anathematized for monoenergism.

and you can keep saying he is Nestorian.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Church history, Christology, and Comparative Theology all teach that we are not the same. it is polite and loving, but firm from our POV

Did any professor at STS explicitly tell you that the Oriental Orthodox are hererics, non-Orthodox, monophysites, or hererodox?

If so, who?

 

[ArmyMatt]

John Sandipoulous is not a serious scholar or Syriologist. Sebastian Brock is.

if they are actually at STS teaching their students that Sebastian Brock is wrong, well, that's pretty shocking.

I never said either men have been taught here, you don't need to be shocked over something I have yet to say.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

it is not my place to correct a bishop, but I will say that a bishop who taught me says they are.

Which bishop? Because Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, Patriarch Theodoros II and Patriarch John X Yazigi say they are Orthodox.

The only bishop I can think of off the top of my head who has really gone after the Oriental Orthodox in a polemical manner is Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus.

But in his case, we are talking about a man who made uncanonical modifications to the Synodicon, adding anti-Semitic clauses to the anathemas on the Sunday of Orthodoxy that outraged many people.

Of course, Georgian-Armenian relations are fraught, but that is alas more of a factor of geopolitics involving the US and Russia.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Did any professor at STS explicitly tell you that the Oriental Orthodox are hererics, non-Orthodox, monophysites, or hererodox?

If so, who?

yes, my dogmatics professor who does not like being named, Archbishop Michael, Fr David Hester, Dr David Ford. all have affirmed the tragedy of the Schism, all are impressed by the Orientals, all want reconciliation with them but done right.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

and you can keep saying he is Nestorian.

St. Isaac the Syrian was a Nestorian monk, briefly a bishop, living in Iraq. He was also, like many members of the Nestorian church, a believer in apokatastasis. This is an established fact.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

yes, my dogmatics professor who does not like being named, Archbishop Michael, Fr David Hester, Dr David Ford. all have affirmed the tragedy of the Schism, all are impressed by the Orientals, all want reconciliation with them but done right.

Archbishop Michael of what jurisdiction?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Archbishop Michael of what jurisdiction?

why?