Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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 was is no question that they are not in communion with us. But regardless we can celebrate their "Orthodoxy" in a sense.
Chalcedonians and Monophysites: Do We Share the Same Beliefs?To summarize: Acceptance of the Sixth Council is much more difficult for us than the acceptance of Chalcedon. The following are the chief reasons:...
b) We are unable to accept the dithelete formula, attributing will and energy to the natures rather than to the hypostasis. We can only affirm the one united and unconfused divine-human nature, will and energy of Christ the incarnate Lord.
Fr. Paul Verghese, an Indian Orthodox scholar, explicitly affirms monoenergism, not "miaenergism." He says there is one energy NOT because Christ has one composite nature, but because will belongs to hypostasis rather than nature! Following the logic of this, there are three wills in God ...
Chalcedonians and Monophysites: Do We Share the Same Beliefs?
He says there is one energy NOT because Christ has one composite nature, but because will belongs to hypostasis rather than nature!
Following the logic of this, there are three wills in God ...
Following that, we do not say that there are therefore three wills in the Holy Trinity, but instead that as Christ is one, His will and actions are also one (to paraphrase a section of one of HH Pope Shenouda's books). Again, this all follows from our miaphysitism just as your belief in dyoenergism follows from your dyophysitism.
Well I guess that depends on what "celebrate" means. We can certainly celebrate what we have in common with other Christians. We can celebrate the witness of Coptic Christians who are martyred for their faith in Jesus Christ. We can even call other Christian churches "churches".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.
but that quite simply is not what Fr. Verghese is saying. he says monoenergism does NOT flow from monophysitism, but rather from attaching will to person. in this conception Christ could have 3, 4, 5, infinite natures, and it wouldn't matter - He would have one will because He's one Person. for Fr. Paul the number of natures and whether or not and how they are unified has nothing to do with the wills. and there are three Persons in the Godhead, so three wills.
Well I guess that depends on what "celebrate" means. We can certainly celebrate what we have in common with other Christians. We can celebrate the witness of Coptic Christians who are martyred for their faith in Jesus Christ.
We can even call other Christian churches "churches".
I am not denying the One Church. I am saying that it is not a black or white issue of where the Church stops and therefore what we celebrate in other Christian Churches. The Arians, though formally outside of the Church, were in some sense celebrated by the Church since their baptism was accepted. And, again, the Arians are a lot farther away than the Copts.Of course. This is what I said.
This is debatable and depends on what you mean by "churches." Of course, Sister Vassa isn't really any kind of authority on the matter. Sure, in everyday talk we talk about other "churches," but when we're getting down to the nitty gritty and speaking dogmatically about how the Church understands itself, obviously we can't make conclusions that deny the One Church that we confess in the Creed.
I am not denying the One Church. I am saying that it is not a black or white issue of where the Church stops and therefore what we celebrate in other Christian Churches. The Arians, though formally outside of the Church, were in some sense celebrated by the Church since their baptism was accepted. And, again, the Arians are a lot farther away than the Copts.
of course he's using hypostasis to refer to the Second Person of the Trinity. That's not the sticking point.
Look, there's two ways of arriving at the conclusion of one will in Christ:
1. one will because one nature
2. one will because one Person
Now, typically people will try to say that the "mia" conception of one nature is really the same as our "dia" conception, just in other words, and therefore the fact that one will flows from this is also not a problem because it would then obviously also be the same as our two wills.
BUT, Fr. Paul is saying - NO, the one will does NOT flow from the one nature but rather from the one PERSON. We absolutely do not and CANNOT accept this. This is an entirely separate error from mia/monophysitism. The error here is all the more obvious when you consider that there are three Persons in the Godhead, and thus there would be three wills in the Godhead rather than the ONE Divine will. This is Fr. Paul's whole point -- he says Chalcedon is not the problem in our rapprochement, but rather the SIXTH Council, because here we undeniably part ways theologically, whereas people can debate about the Fourth.
God is three Persons, one nature. If you attach will to nature, you get one will in God. If you attach will to Person you get three wills in God.
one will because one Person
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.
As said best in An Explanatory Letter from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, "The Coptic Orthodox Church believe that Jesus Christ is fully Divine and fully Human in His nature and that in the union of His Divinity and Humanity, the two natures continue to exist in the union without confusion, without change, without division and without separation."
Obviously, because ambiguous language by Nestorious was easily misunderstood among the many heresies swirling about (e.g. adoptionism, docetism, Apollonarianism, etc.), The West resolved the debate of the two-natures at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) - and although it should be acknowledged that Chalcedon did not entirely remove the mystery of the paradox that exists in the person of Christ. For at best, the Chalcedonian Creed states what the two natures in one person does not mean - and as non-Chalcedonians have repeatedly noted this issue and other Chalcedonians have acknowledged it, it's not new news to note that non-Chaledonians overall don't have issue with the idea of Two Natures when clarified.
Of course, among converts in EO, there's often a lot of assumptions. Growing up on both sides and seeing it in person, it really wouldn't be accurate claiming otherwise. When anyone (including EO who've done so) say that Christ with Two Natures needs to always be clarified as not being Two persons so others don't push that, that's no an issue. It has happened with several here - and I myself do that and have done that with others on my forum page here ( Whenever an EO says something to others that isn't accurate, of course folks will address it.
I remember this coming up before and I am very glad Dr. Sebastian Brock has done the research he has done as the foremost scholar in the world for Syriac Orthodoxy and St. Issac. I've shared before on how My own background involves both the Syriac Tradition as well as the Antiochian tradition - and I already have friends/family in the Coptic tradition (which I already shared when speaking about being invited to visit His Holiness when he was in town, others knowing where I stand as I've shared before in Prayers, as I'm looking Forward to Meeting the Coptic Pope Tomorrow and Pesach...something to think about).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.
In the 5th century, the Church of the East gravitated towards the radical Antiochene form of Christology that had been articulated by Theodore of Mopsuestia, who was much, much more adept than Nestorius (who tended to over-react to things) and who is the best known representative of the middle School of Antioch of hermeneutics(more shared in his Commentary on the Nicene Creed). There are excellent books on the issue that really bring the issue home - as seen in the book entitled Christianity in Iraq: Its Origins and Development to the Present Day by Suha Rassam...a well known scholar in the Orthodox world (as well as Catholic).
The politics behind the reject of Theodore of Mopsuestia were particularly bad. Recent discussions with the Oriental Orthodox reflect a better attitude.
In regards to Theodore and Dicourus, of course, incidently, they are rejected by the Eastern Orthodox - their writings are condemned by the 5th ecumenical council, even though others have noted how interesting it was that Theodore of Mopsuestia was condemned posthumously to appease the Cyrillians, a highly controversial act. Other EO have gone back in dialogues and brought to light the fact that both of those individuals were saints in their era and that is not a small issue - and when it comes to linkage, it is highly odd whenever others try to reference Saints such as St.Isaac of Nineveh and yet ignore both Issac and Isaac's Church's devotion to Theodore of Mopsuestia (more here).
But if following Theodore of Mopsuestia you end up theologically agreeing with Nestorius (even while not being as outlandish as Nestorius) - as Nestorius largely repeats Theodore's theology with regards to the Incarnation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?