Recent communication between EO and OO?

[dzheremi]

Ughhhh...."Gather us in"...nooooooooo! I'm going to start getting flashbacks over here!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It's called Catholic PTSD. It knows no conversion differences. Copts, Orthodox, Protestants, any group can experience it. "Gather Us In" usually, like Pavlov's dogs, causes instant salivation and wrenching when heard by those who have left. "It it I, Lord" and "El Cuerpo de Christo" can also cause pelvic pinching.

Ughhhh...."Gather us in"...nooooooooo! I'm going to start getting flashbacks over here!

 

[ArmyMatt]

Of course I'm kidding!! I wish to goodness that Orthodoxy and the Copts were united again! I'd love it!

My understanding, and I know I'm probably wrong because I'm no Father Matt here, but it seems that it just boils down to the Coptic Church back at Chalcedon was seeking to avoid NESTORIANISM. The errors of Nestorius were something they saw as so serious, that they didn't like the way things were worded. My understanding was that the Copts didn't want some kind of undercover Nestorian toxic residue to enter the Church with the Chalcedonian formula since it said Christ was one person with two distinct natures. To them it sounded Nestorian. That was always my understanding of it all. I might be wrong. But if so, then their motivation was good, but the final decision poor. Because Christ does have two distinct natures. I think the Coptics see the natures as blended into one?

This is above my spiritual pay grade.

sorta. the non-Chalcedonians didn't like the "in two Natures" formula, and the Council restored two of Nestorius' allies Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Ibas of Edessa (although they both had to agree Nestorius is condemned).

at the time, yes, the Alexandrians were pro saying a mixed Nature. Dioscorus supported Eutyches at Chalcedon. they called themselves Monophysites before we did. however, Severus of Antioch was much more moderate and he rightly condemned that idea. and I am pretty sure Dioscorus agreed to that condemnation, because he isn't listed with Eutyches as a Monophysite heretic. so they have not affirmed that heresy.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It's okay. I'm not an ethnic Copt or from another 'OO ethnicity' (blehhhh...that felt gross to type), so I don't mean to talk for anyone who is, but in my personal experience Copts (Egyptians) and Orthodox Tewahedo (Ethiopians and Eritreans) don't tend to mind the confusion, because it's a technical matter that they don't generally expect others to understand. Just don't call Eritreans Ethiopians and you'll be fine.



Yes, I definitely hear you on this! I am also a layperson and have had that same discussion with Greeks and other Chalcedonians in Albuquerque when I lived there (both in real life and online). Many times, in fact. It is to the point where I will walk away not because I am offended or angry, but just because there isn't anything left to say, you know? I think you are on to something about the statements our respective churches give us. I have come to the conclusion personally (again, as a layperson; this is not an "official OO stance" or whatever) that it is more a matter of mindset and approach to things than necessarily differences in faith. HH Pope Shenouda III of thrice-blessed memory declared back in the 1990s that, as far as we are concerned, the technical Christological controversy is resolved. You can hear it from his own mouth at 1:38 in the following video:

The issue now is, of course, that it is not as simple as having theologians meet and agree on whatever level they can (and I think HH knows this, obviously; I take his comment to be more like "Thanks be to God this advancement in our relations has happened", not "Voila! The schism is over!" or anything like that). It is, as HH puts it in the very end of the video clip, the matter of "going in the way of unity", or if you will, in a practical sense, doing exactly what you are already doing on FB and I'm going to assume in real life with your OO friends: Having these kinds of difficult talks. Trying to figure out where the differences are, and if they are surmountable, and what they 'mean' in terms of the life of the Church you are looking at. Not every OO person or even every OO Church looks at the schism in the same way, though we all want it to end. The Armenians, for instance, were late to condemn the Tome (in 506, in a council at Dvin), but early to call for reunion after the breakdown of the Henotikon and so forth (e.g., the reunion attempts of HH Catholicos Nerses Shnorhali in the 12th century). The Copts and Tewahedo, for our part, have been a tougher nut to crack, for various reasons related to their particular histories which I have to say as someone who converted to this Church I feel woefully unworthy to even touch. But all of this goes into how we view the schism, and our Church and tradition, and your Church and tradition.

Basically, we still don't necessarily know each other well enough. I have read comments on this board and in private about how "I could never go to a Coptic church; why go there, when I have the real thing?", which, yeah, fine, obviously that's how the Church that you're in views things, so I won't knock it (we sometimes express similar sentiments), but you are then missing a chance to connect with these people who you at least want to bring to Orthodoxy if you don't think they're already believers and practitioners of it (or however you'd put it). So there is a kind of barrier that comes from a "those people over there are X, we are Y; stick with Y" attitude, like when I was still just a catechumen and I mentioned that I might go to the local OCA when I was home for Christmas to visit family (St. Seraphim of Sarov in Santa Rosa, CA; I recommend it highly, if you are in the area, in addition to a trip to historic Fort Ross...if you can trust the word of a dirty miaphysite ), and one of the little old ladies (I believe you'd call them yiayias or babushkas; for us they are طنط tunt/tant -- meaning 'aunty') took me aside and very sweetly said "You know we are not in communion with them, right?", with a vibe of like 'You should not go there'. I did not tell her that I had already been there before I ever knew the Coptic Orthodox Church was.

I do not believe the schism will end until this kind of thing because so rare as to be seen as inappropriate, even when it comes from Tant Hoda or Tant Mary or whoever (or a yiayia, or a babushka, etc) . We need to see our faith and ourselves in one another's churches, on both a higher-level theological plane, for those who are gifted in that manner of insight into things, and in a practical, real-world sense -- i.e., Coptic people should go to EO liturgies, and vice versa, while respecting the reality that we are not yet officially in communion. Tasbeha should ring out in Greek churches with Egyptian visitors, and our monasteries should welcome the equivalent prayers from Greek visitors, even in the cave of St. Anthony himself, as he is our common spiritual father (I don't think its current occupant, Fr. Lazarus El Antony, would object, as before he came to the Coptic Orthodox Church he had been in a Serbian Orthodox Monastery).

God-willing, this will happen by the Lord's strength and in His time, but in the meantime we have a lot of work to do. Again, I really do think it is a matter of different mindsets by this point. I do not want to anger anyone, but there is a certain sense among OO (or maybe it's just the ones I've talked to/known?) that on a certain level, you guys are to us as the Roman Catholics are to you: 'intellectual' in a way that is foreign to us, seeing councils differently, being rigid and cold to anything that is not from within your own tradition, etc. I don't think such a characterization is necessarily very fair or accurate in all cases, but I have definitely run into EO individuals (including some who presented themselves online as priests; NOT FATHER MATT -- a different guy I tried to talk to on CAF, before I was banned there for not being friendly enough about Islam and Roman Catholicism) for whom it is absolutely fitting, at least with regard to the kinds of statements they would make (with full 'knowledge' of OO practices and/or history that they clearly did not understand or even describe correctly in a secular/temporal/non-polemical fashion; I dunno...maybe they read a Wikipedia or Orthodoxwiki article about them once, and then they're an expert; there's an Egyptian saying that's meant to be about reading the Bible, but I think also applies here, in a slightly different way: "The letter kills" ). I am 1,000% sure that the same phenomenon exists among OO, though I have not personally run into anything from priests beyond skipping one of the commemorations in the Tasbeha for a saint who they said was "added under Byzantine pressure", which I thought was weird at the time and my priest thought was weird when I got back home and told him about it (it was when I was visiting a different state, in another diocese), since the saint is definitely recognized within our communion, and has been since forever. Lord have mercy. Again, so much work to do. Sorry this post was so long. That probably doesn't help.

A lot to digest here, but I appreciate it. It's helpful to read.

BTW, we have both Ethiopians and Eritreans at our (Greek EO) parish. I made the Ethiopian lady VERY angry back when I knew essentially nothing and casually commented during a discussion where Copts were mentioned that we were not in communion. She insisted that we were and I'm pretty sure she's actually a little bit - we will say guarded - with me since then and I think that comment was the reason. I still don't quite know exactly why she was so highly offended since it is true, but I won't be commenting on anything related or calling anyone Ethiopian or Eritrean either - they can speak for themselves.

But. Other than that, I've heard not a whisper of anything like you described. Before I travelled and visited, Father wanted me to be aware that we were not in communion but he never said I couldn't of shouldn't go to a Coptic parish to visit. And I think most of my parish doesn't realize there was a schism. To them, I think Orthodox is Orthodox. Most of them don't seem to be deeply aware of differences we have with Catholics or Protestants either, but they do know we aren't in communion.

As for me - I may be wrong, but I've never had a thought of trying to "convert" an OO to EO. I wish we were in communion, but I don't view them as so "other" that I'm desperate for their sakes to get them in the EO Church. Then again, truth be told, I'm not trying to drag Catholics or Protestants in either, though I would be much more likely to encourage them more if I saw any interest, since to my mind they do tend to have errors and omissions among them that could be benefited by having what we can offer.

Anyway. That's just my own opinion. But I guess it's been shaped by hundreds of other Orthodox (of both EO and OO).

I don't see much difference in practice unless I'm missing something. One of my favorite teachers on YouTube is OO. I play him sometimes because (to be honest) he says things my husband could probably strongly relate to as well. And I've read a few OO books on spiritual practices. They were quite good, I thought. In a way both deeply spiritual and also accessible to non-monastics.

I don't really want to comment on the music. It is jarring to me, and I am not willing to trade the Byzantine chant for it. To me, it is more foreign sounding. But I'd still like to see us return to communion.

Of course as Fr Matt says, TRUE communion. It's just really beyond my knowledge to talk very much in detail about what that would look like.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I saw this thread title, btw, and got excited. It sounded like Electric Light Orchestra was going on tour. And in fact, ELO is!

The EO and OO aren't getting back together, but ELO is. That's good at least. I'm in the mood for "Mr. Blue Sky" and "Telephone Line!"

 

[ArmyMatt]

A lot to digest here, but I appreciate it. It's helpful to read.

BTW, we have both Ethiopians and Eritreans at our (Greek EO) parish. I made the Ethiopian lady VERY angry back when I knew essentially nothing and casually commented during a discussion where Copts were mentioned that we were not in communion. She insisted that we were and I'm pretty sure she's actually a little bit - we will say guarded - with me since then and I think that comment was the reason. I still don't quite know exactly why she was so highly offended since it is true, but I won't be commenting on anything related or calling anyone Ethiopian or Eritrean either - they can speak for themselves.

But. Other than that, I've heard not a whisper of anything like you described. Before I travelled and visited, Father wanted me to be aware that we were not in communion but he never said I couldn't of shouldn't go to a Coptic parish to visit. And I think most of my parish doesn't realize there was a schism. To them, I think Orthodox is Orthodox. Most of them don't seem to be deeply aware of differences we have with Catholics or Protestants either, but they do know we aren't in communion.

As for me - I may be wrong, but I've never had a thought of trying to "convert" an OO to EO. I wish we were in communion, but I don't view them as so "other" that I'm desperate for their sakes to get them in the EO Church. Then again, truth be told, I'm not trying to drag Catholics or Protestants in either, though I would be much more likely to encourage them more if I saw any interest, since to my mind they do tend to have errors and omissions among them that could be benefited by having what we can offer.

Anyway. That's just my own opinion. But I guess it's been shaped by hundreds of other Orthodox (of both EO and OO).

I don't see much difference in practice unless I'm missing something. One of my favorite teachers on YouTube is OO. I play him sometimes because (to be honest) he says things my husband could probably strongly relate to as well. And I've read a few OO books on spiritual practices. They were quite good, I thought. In a way both deeply spiritual and also accessible to non-monastics.

I don't really want to comment on the music. It is jarring to me, and I am not willing to trade the Byzantine chant for it. To me, it is more foreign sounding. But I'd still like to see us return to communion.

Of course as Fr Matt says, TRUE communion. It's just really beyond my knowledge to talk very much in detail about what that would look like.

I think part of the fuzziness is that when the average EO and OO talk, we both sound a lot alike. the problem is that without Chalcedon, and the subsequent Councils, the door is open for heresy to creep in, without any check to hold it in place.

this is how prominent non-Chalcedonian theologians can push monoenergism, monothelitism, and be against Palamism, which from our POV are all completely unacceptable. but then you talk to the average parish priest or parishioner, and they would side with us on those three beliefs.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think part of the fuzziness is that when the average EO and OO talk, we both sound a lot alike. the problem is that without Chalcedon, and the subsequent Councils, the door is open for heresy to creep in, without any check to hold it in place.

this is how prominent non-Chalcedonian theologians can push monoenergism, monothelitism, and be against Palamism, which from our POV are all completely unacceptable. but then you talk to the average parish priest or parishioner, and they would side with us on those three beliefs.

That sounds like a very confusing situation.

I have to wonder what kind of position that would put "the average parish priest or parishioner" in. I know it's very upsetting when there's any hint of any teaching from within our Church against what we would affirm.

I know in what I've heard and read, there was no suggestion of monergism, but everything pointed strongly to a belief in synergism. The other teaching wouldn't have come up in things I watched and read, as it wasn't really purely theological.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That sounds like a very confusing situation.

I have to wonder what kind of position that would put "the average parish priest or parishioner" in. I know it's very upsetting when there's any hint of any teaching from within our Church against what we would affirm.

I know in what I've heard and read, there was no suggestion of monergism, but everything pointed strongly to a belief in synergism. The other teaching wouldn't have come up in things I watched and read, as it wasn't really purely theological.

yes, 90% of the time it's a strong emphasis on the singleness of Christ and the union. however, there are prominent voices I have read in class that are heretical. beloved as Severus may be, there is no doubt he taught heresy, unless St Maximos is the actual heretic.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It's so interesting how our priest is friends with a Catholic priest up in Merced. This Catholic priest, Father Gustavo, brings the relics of Sts. Peter and Paul to us twice a year to share them on our parish Slava. He attends the entire vespers or liturgy whenever he comes. Neat guy. I went up and thanked him for bringing the relics, and as he shook my hand he said, "absolutely. The saints belong to all of us."

Too bad there has to be separation between so much of Christendom. I hate it. Jeremy needs to contact the powers-that-be at Coptic headquarters and get the ball rolling.