Copts are Orthodox too

ArmyMatt · Mar 4, 2017

and I would point out, Archbishop Michael just came back from being invited to India by the Malankar. he had a very fruitful talk, and the hope he has starts with acknowledging what is different.

Commander Xenophon · Mar 4, 2017

ArmyMatt said:
why?

I provided the names of leading Orthodox Patriarchs who support reconciliation, and also the names of some of the leading opponents of reconciliation. If you're not comfortable naming His Eminence, that's fine, however, I have no idea which archbishop you are referring to or what jurisdiction he is in. There are some retired archbishops, for example, who hold eccentric views.

There are also Old Calendarist archbishops, who view all ecumenism as evil.

Just to be clear, if you're not comfortable stating his identity, or if His Eminence memtioned his views to you in confidence, I would not want you to reveal them here.

I am only interested in public statements on ecumenical reconciliation.

Commander Xenophon · Mar 4, 2017

Btw. just a straw poll for those in favor or opposed to EO-OO recomciliation:

Are you cradle Orthodox or convert? if you are a convert, how long have you been Orthodox? Which autocephalous Patriarchate presides over your church?

ArmyMatt · Mar 4, 2017

Commander Xenophon said:
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.

we know that he was in the Church in Persia. however, that does not mean he was Nestorian. England held out in her Orthodoxy after the Schism, and there were probably faithful pockets in the West even afterwards. and Nyssa beloved in apokatastasis, just not the heretical kind.

ArmyMatt · Mar 4, 2017

Commander Xenophon said:
I provided the names of leading Orthodox Patriarchs who support reconciliation, and also the names of some of the leading opponents of reconciliation. If you're not comfortable naming His Eminence, that's fine, however, I have no idea which archbishop you are referring to or what jurisdiction he is in. There are some retired archbishops, for example, who hold eccentric views.

There are also Old Calendarist archbishops, who view all ecumenism as evil.

Just to be clear, if you're not comfortable stating his identity, or if His Eminence memtioned his views to you in confidence, I would not want you to reveal them here.

I am only interested in public statements on ecumenical reconciliation.

well you could probably figure it out, but Archbishop Michael of NY. And he is for reconciliation, just not the way you are saying, as am I for it

ArmyMatt · Mar 4, 2017

Commander Xenophon said:
Btw. just a straw poll for those in favor or opposed to EO-OO recomciliation:

Are you cradle Orthodox or convert? if you are a convert, how long have you been Orthodox? Which autocephalous Patriarchate presides over your church?

convert, OCA, been Orthodox 11 years

my wife who is cradle and Greek agrees with me on this, as do all my brothers here FYI

Lukaris · Mar 4, 2017

What was the relarionship between the Chalcedonian and non Chalcedonian churches during the 6th century of Justinian and Theodora?

Commander Xenophon · Mar 4, 2017

ArmyMatt said:
we know that he was in the Church in Persia. however, that does not mean he was Nestorian. England held out in her Orthodoxy after the Schism, and there were probably faithful pockets in the West even afterwards. and Nyssa beloved in apokatastasis, just not the heretical kind.

Actually we do know he was Nestorian, because he was appointed to his see, and travelled there, under the orders of the Nestorian Catholicos.

And the Nestorians venerate him.

Commander Xenophon · Mar 4, 2017

Lukaris said:
What was the relarionship between the Chalcedonian and non Chalcedonian churches during the 6th century of Justinian and Theodora?

It was very, very complicated.

ArmyMatt · Mar 4, 2017

Commander Xenophon said:
Actually we do know he was Nestorian, because he was appointed to his see, and travelled there, under the orders of the Nestorian Catholicos.

And the Nestorians venerate him.

what do we have from that time that supports that?

and so what if the Nestorians venerate him, Rome venerates St Leo. just because they venerate him, that doesn't mean he was theirs

and even then, just because someone outside the Church says something, that does not make it true. Eusebius says St Constantine was baptized by an Arian, whereas our hymns say St Sylvester of Rome did it. between the two, I would trust our hymns.

and the issue for Severus is that he was anathematized by name, not just that he was a devout member of a heretical body.

ArmyMatt · Mar 4, 2017

and I will also say, I think with our history around clearly maintaining the distinction in two natures in Christ, we can use stronger language on the union and Christ's oneness as a way to reach out that would not violate or compromise what we profess

buzuxi02 · Mar 4, 2017

Lukaris said:
What was the relarionship between the Chalcedonian and non Chalcedonian churches during the 6th century of Justinian and Theodora?

It was fluid. Both EO & OO shared the same Alexandrian Patriarch till about 535 AD. The emperor Zeno issued his compromise solution called the henoticon in 482 AD where a number of bishops signed . The henoticon was an agreement of union and was signed by Acacius of Constantinople, Severus of Antioch, and the Catholicos of Georgia (forgot his name) and many others. Basically the Henoticon stated Nestorianism is anathema, Eutyches is anathemized. the 12 Anathemas of Cyril against Nestorius remain. And the definition of Chalcedon (along with Leo's Tome) will not be discussed. This created the Acacian schism with Rome which lasted about 35 years. With the emperor Justinian in the mid 6th century there was basically a game of good cop, bad cop. Justinian''s wife was a miaphysite while Justinian was chalcedonian (both of whom are saints in EO). Finally it was codified into roman law that the Pentarchy compromises the Chalcedonian successions.

buzuxi02 · Mar 4, 2017

Commander Xenophon said:
Asking them to not venerate Severus would be pure hypocrisy.

We ourselves should venerate Severus, given the huge contributions he made to the Eastern Orthodox faith. He, along with Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, is a vital theologian who was not glorified for reasons that were basically political.

So are you willing to give the Assyrians a seat at the table? Because they also claim misunderstanding and bad translations of terminology. They also have a better understanding of the original Antiochan and Edessa theology unlike the Syriacs whose patrimony was hijacked and extinguished by the extreme miaphysite Cyrillists. Problem is when you get Assyrians and OO in the same room they will be at each other's throats.

buzuxi02 · Mar 5, 2017

Commander Xenophon said:
Btw. just a straw poll for those in favor or opposed to EO-OO recomciliation:

Are you cradle Orthodox or convert? if you are a convert, how long have you been Orthodox? Which autocephalous Patriarchate presides over your church?

I am cradle. I dont believe in this syncretism. The time is not ripe for reunification (and may never be). Eastern Orthodox believe in the dogmas of 7 Ecumenical councils. Now if they agree with those dogmas and accept them and acknowledge those decisions and agree the 4th-7th council are of natural lineage to the first 3 councils, then all is good. The Coptic pope would have to include these councils as it is the Coptic pope that still claims he is heir to the roman imperial patriarchates first established in the canon of Nicea. The Copts may bad-mouth the later roman emperors but sure loved the earlier ones that agreed with them. The same roman imperial church in Alexandria which the Copts claim to have been of their own lineage up to 536A.d.
Armenians may have an excuse as they developed mostly outside the empire, at times within their own kingdom and amongst the Sassanid empire and can lay claim to a different patrimony.

Personally i do not believe the OO view the Chalcedonian horos nor the Agreement of Union between Cyril and John of Antioch as an authentic expression of the Church catholic. I do not believe they accept that the Antiochan and original Edessa school along with Rome held to an apostolic tradition where at times the higher acts of Christ were attributed to his divine glory and the lower things such as his suffering to the human nature. In fact Pope Leo's tome as cringeworthy as certain aspects of it were, are no more cringeworthy with what St. Athanasius wrote. Im sure many miaphysites find St Athanasius third oration Against Arius problematic and if you quote from it without telling them its St Athanasius work they would consider it nestorian:

55. But these affections (sufferings) were not proper to the nature of the Word, as far as He was Word; but in the flesh which was thus affected, was the Word....For He said not this prior to the flesh; but when the 'Word became flesh,' and become man, then is it written that He said this, that is, humanly....
57. And as to His saying, 'If it be possible, let the cup pass,' observe how, though He thus spoke, He rebuked Peter, saying, 'Thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.' For He willed what He deprecated, for therefore had He come; but His was the willing (for this He came), but the terror belonged to the flesh. Wherefore as man He utters this speech also, and yet both were said by the Same, to show that He was God, willing in Himself, but when He had become man, having a flesh that was in terror. For the sake of this flesh He combined His own will with human weakness...
For human were the sayings, 'Let the cup pass,' and 'Why have You forsaken Me?' and divine the act whereby the Same did cause the sun to fail and the dead to rise. Again He said humanly, 'Now is My soul troubled;' and He said divinely, 'I have power to lay down My life, and power to take it again. ' For to be troubled was proper to the flesh, and to have power to lay down His life and take it again, was no property of men but of the Word's power...CHURCH FATHERS: Discourse III Against the Arians (Athanasius)

jckstraw72 · Mar 5, 2017

it was revealed to St. Paisios that St. Isaac was not a Nestorian, and he referred to him as "St. Isaac, the much-slandered" or something like that

ArmyMatt · Mar 5, 2017

and St Theodora had non-Chalcedonian leanings and encouraged their clergy behind the scenes because she thought the Schism would end, I am pretty sure she was never a part of that communion.

and just to add, one of the Coptic popes who was very favorable to us, Kyrillos I believe, was seen in a vision removing his Coptic turban and putting on a kamilavka after his death, handed to him by St Spyridon.

Jesus4Madrid · Mar 5, 2017

Orthodoxjay1 said:
See I don't get a lot of this attitude, that we can't speak Frank with our friends, that doesn't mean it's uncomfortable. My uncle a Catholic recently said there not much different between Catholics, and Orthodox, well with all due respect, yes there is differences, especially with developments like Purgatory, Papal Indulgences, the Co-redmitrix of the Theotokos, Created Grace, the Immaculate Conception, Papal Primacy, etc.

Yes, much greater than with Copts.

Jesus4Madrid · Mar 5, 2017

ArmyMatt said:
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.

Whilst I agree, I think we can offer considerable charity to our Coptic brothers, knowing that our forefathers offered charity (and often did not rebaptise) even to the Arians. Copts are a lot closer than the Arians, I would submit.

My priest and spiritual director is a huge fan of Ethiopian icons. There is no question that they are not in communion with us. But regardless we can celebrate their "Orthodoxy" in a sense.

jckstraw72 · Mar 5, 2017

Sure, we can be glad for all things they have retained, but "Orthodoxy" means retaining everything. Unfortunately, we can't celebrate that in anyone but the Orthodox Church.

Paul Yohannan · Mar 5, 2017

buzuxi02 said:
So are you willing to give the Assyrians a seat at the table? Because they also claim misunderstanding and bad translations of terminology. They also have a better understanding of the original Antiochan and Edessa theology unlike the Syriacs whose patrimony was hijacked and extinguished by the extreme miaphysite Cyrillists. Problem is when you get Assyrians and OO in the same room they will be at each other's throats.

Just so you know, Assyrians and Syriac Orthodox get along very well. Its mainly the Copts and Assyrians who dislike each other alas.

Here is a photo of HH Mor Ignatius Zakka Iwas of blessed memory meeting with HH Mar Dinkha IV of blessed memory:

I think the war in Syria and Iraq killed them as well as His Beatitude Ignatius IV of Antioch. Such a shame. All three were such beautiful bishops.

Copts are Orthodox too

Regular Member

Member of the Admiralty

Member of the Admiralty

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Orthodox Christian

Member of the Admiralty

Member of the Admiralty

Regular Member

Regular Member

Veteran

Veteran

Veteran

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Regular Member

Orthodox Christian

Orthodox Christian

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency