Copts are Orthodox too

[ArmyMatt]

St Paisius is a greater authority on Orthodoxy than Dr David Hart. and I think the fact that non-Chalcedonians also venerate him is solid evidence that he was never Nestorian, despite what our academics say.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Well, we have to understand that receiving someone by economia is not therefore a recognition of their baptism -- that's why we call it "economia" - it's a loosening of the rule. If, in fact, an Arian baptism, or a Catholic baptism, or a Coptic baptism were actually recognized as true baptisms, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to EVER receive them by baptism, because baptizing someone a second time is a serious sin. To receive by chrismation would in fact be the akrivia, the only acceptable way. But, of course Catholics and Coptics can indeed be received by baptism.

Copts cannot be received by Baptism, and neither can Nestorians, as it is a violation of the ancient canons. They can only be received by confession. See the Pedalion of St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain.

In principle, the Syriac and Antiochian Orthodox churches agreed to not convert members between each other (although this is commonly and uncanonically ignored in AOCNA mainly due to converts; the Syrian emigres don't care).

 

[jckstraw72]

Well, it happens that they are received by Baptism.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

St Paisius is a greater authority on Orthodoxy than Dr David Hart. and I think the fact that non-Chalcedonians also venerate him is solid evidence that he was never Nestorian, despite what our academics say.

By this logic, we should reject the existence of atoms because St. Basil in his weitings described the idea as nonsense; he believed in the five elements!

Saints are not infallible; they make mistakes. Only Tradition as a whole is infallible, and there is a difference between this Tradition and small-t traditions. Our bishops clearly have set out that the tradition concerning the OO is not part of theninfallible deposit of faith, by re-establishing certain forms of intercommunion and a process for further reunion.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Well, it happens that they are received by Baptism.

Where?

I've never heard of it. in the Antiochian Orthodox Church and in the Greek Orthodox church of Alexandria they aren't received at all.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

By this logic, we should reject the existence of atoms because St. Basil in his writings described the idea as nonsense; he believed in the five elements!

Saints are not infallible; they make mistakes. Only Tradition as a whole is infallible, and there is a difference between this Tradition and small-t traditions.

Ultimately, for anyone to quote St. Paisius as being a greater authority than other Orthodox academics/bishops, there has to be an understanding that not everything a Saint does or says is beyond question - especially if something they say is not consistent with the person they are speaking of. This is a basic principle even in the scriptures when it comes to testing all things for consistency and not taking anything at face-value (Acts 17:11, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, etc.) - and at the end of the day, we have to go with St. Isaac's words. Where academics actually line up with what an early Saint said/did, weight is given - and the same goes for others who were Saints from the 20th century. But where it not factual, it can't be held to.

As stated previously, this is what St. Isaac said verbatim on Theodore of Mopsuestia:

-"turn to the writings of the Blessed Interpreter ( Theodore of Mopsuestia ), a man who had his sufficient fill of the gifts of grace, who was entrusted with the hidden mysteries of the Scriptures, ( enabling him ) to instruct on the path to truth the whole community of the Church; who, above all, has illumined us orientals with wisdom - nor is our mind's vision capable enough ( to bear ) the brilliancy of his compositions, inspired by the divine Spirit.

" ... we accept ( him ) like one of the apostles, and anyone who opposes his words, introduces doubt into his interpretations, or shows hesitation at his words, ( such a person ) we hold to be alien to the community of the Church and someone who is erring from the truth." ( St. Isaac, The Second Part , p. 165-166 )​

St.Isaac honored Theodore of Mopsuestia - and he saw it more than necessary to see others like Theodore as "the Blessed Interpreter ( Theodore of Mopsuestia )", so I don't know how one can claim to honor him without seeing what he actually said repeatedly when pointing back to Theodore as his inspiration. His commentary on Theodore was very extensive, so it'd be intellectual dishonesty/inconsistency for anyone to claim St.Isaac was not Nestorian on any level when his own writings point back to others who were involved in that world.

I don't see where St. Isaac was off for doing as he did - nor do I see it as logical to claim that St. Paisus was given the final vision for how to see St. Isaac when St. Isaac's writings do not show he felt he was slandered by referencing/celebrating others in the Church of the East like Theodore and 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).

If St. Paisios did not accurately deal with what St. Isaac noted in his writings, it doesn't logically follow that ALL things St. Paisios said or did were in any way off - as that'd assume a logical fallacy that says being wrong on one point means error on ALL points. There are already plenty of stories within the Scriptures where men/women of God missed it, as is the case even with St.David when he felt God called him to build the temple and Nathan the Prophet said "Go, the Lord is with you" - before God came to Nathan and noted that was not really what he had given David permission to do. From a Biblical perspective (and all Tradition has to be consistent with that), we see how David was talking with the prophet Nathan—the same prophet who later would rebuke him for committing adultery with Bathsheba and setting up the murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite (2 Samuel 12) - and we see how David was dismayed because God was dwelling inside tent curtains while he lived in a house of cedar (2 Samuel 7:2).

That's when Nathan spoke proclaimed "Go, do all that is in your heart, for the Lord is with you" (2 Samuel 7:3) - but God later sent Nathan back to David with a prophetic word that contradicted his friendly counsel to "do all that is in your heart, for the Lord is with you" since the Lord did not want David to build him a house (2 Samuel 7:4-17), but rather a dynasty. There was humility for Nathan who realized what he assumed to be the Lord wasn't fully accurate - even though as a prophet he felt he was sure.

So why would it be assumed that St. Paisios was above error for assuming something he saw had to be final revelation from the Lord when none of the historical records of St. Isaac and Theodore match that OR the actual writings of St. Isaac himself? That kind of activity has happened before - and that's why the Saints are examples of God's grace. Not infallible witness on all things.

Personally, on St. Isaac's relationship to Theodore, I'm glad for 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).

​

 

[jckstraw72]

By this logic, we should reject the existence of atoms because St. Basil in his weitings described the idea as nonsense; he believed in the five elements!

Saints are not infallible; they make mistakes. Only Tradition as a whole is infallible, and there is a difference between this Tradition and small-t traditions. Our bishops clearly have set out that the tradition concerning the OO is not part of theninfallible deposit of faith, by re-establishing certain forms of intercommunion and a process for further reunion.

the question of atoms is scientific and has no bearing on the faith in the slightest. St. Basil, if he was wrong, was wrong because the science of his day was wrong.

the question of whether someone is a saint or not is a matter of faith, and St. Paisios received a revelation from God. If St. Paisios is wrong then he isn't just wrong, but also deluded, not able to discern what is from God and what is either from within himself or from demons.

 

[jckstraw72]

Where?

I've never heard of it. in the Antiochian Orthodox Church and in the Greek Orthodox church of Alexandria they aren't received at all.

It happens on Mt. Athos, where they give everyone from any background the blessing of an Orthodox baptism, and in other places.

Here's the story of a Coptic man converting to Orthodoxy in Cairo: Becoming Orthodox ...

 

[Commander Xenophon]

the question of atoms is scientific and has no bearing on the faith in the slightest. St. Basil, if he was wrong, was wrong because the science of his day was wrong.

the question of whether someone is a saint or not is a matter of faith, and St. Paisios received a revelation from God. If St. Paisios is wrong then he isn't just wrong, but also deluded, not able to discern what is from God and what is either from within himself or from demons.

or maybe St. Paisios misinterpreted it. maybe God was trying to tell him that the Assyrians and the Oriental Orthodox are Christologically Orthodox and a part of the Church

 

[Commander Xenophon]

It happens on Mt. Athos, where they give everyone from any background the blessing of an Orthodox baptism, and in other places.

Here's the story of a Coptic man converting to Orthodoxy in Cairo: Becoming Orthodox ...

And there have been cases of Ethiopian monks baptizing Eastern Orthodox.

That doesn't make it canonical.

The canons say Nestorians and Monophysites are to be received by confession.

Of course the Oriental Orthodox aren't Monophysites, so in the church of Antioch they are not received at all. A Syriac Orthodox cannot be received into the Antiochian church or vice versa (in Syria at least).

 

[jckstraw72]

And there have been cases of Ethiopian monks baptizing Eastern Orthodox.

That doesn't make it canonical.

The canons say Nestorians and Monophysites are to be received by confession.

Of course the Oriental Orthodox aren't Monophysites, so in the church of Antioch they are not received at all. A Syriac Orthodox cannot be received into the Antiochian church or vice versa (in Syria at least).

There are some pretty prominent Orthodox theologians today who argue these canons are giving us the limits of possible economia, but that the Fathers would never prohibit Baptism. The Lord said go and baptize. How could we say go and do not baptize?

that Antioch has, supposedly, gone to the extreme does not really change anything. it doesn't change the fact that elsewhere the standard of the Church is manifested in baptizing such converts. we confess one Church, with 7 (or even 9) Councils. outside this is outside the Church, and even Catholics and Orientals can be and are received by Baptism. If Orientals are in fact Orthodox then it is a terrible sin to baptize them into the Orthodox Church that must be stopped, not just some peculiarity.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

There are some pretty prominent Orthodox theologians today who argue these canons are giving us the limits of possible economia, but that the Fathers would never prohibit Baptism. The Lord said go and baptize. How could we say go and do not baptize?

that Antioch has, supposedly, gone to the extreme does not really change anything. it doesn't change the fact that elsewhere the standard of the Church is manifested in baptizing such converts. we confess one Church, with 7 (or even 9) Councils. outside this is outside the Church, and even Catholics and Orientals can be and are received by Baptism. If Orientals are in fact Orthodox then it is a terrible sin to baptize them into the Orthodox Church that must be stopped, not just some peculiarity.

Not "supposedly." Antioch agreed with the Syriac Orthodox Church, and the view of HB Ignatius IV and HH Ignatius Zakka Iwas, Memory Eternal, is clear: the two Parriarchates are both one church. Also, if there can be 9 councils, or even 10, why not 3?

Here is the official agreement between the two Churches of Antioch:

A Synodal and Patriarchal Letter.

To All Our Children, Protected by God, of the Holy See of Antioch:

Beloved:

You must have heard of the continuous efforts for decades by our Church with the sister Syrian Orthodox Church to foster a better knowledge and understanding of both Churches, whether on the dogmatic or pastoral level. These attempts are nothing but a natural expression that the Orthodox Churches, and especially those within the Holy See of Antioch, are called to articulate the will of the Lord that all may be obey, just as the Son is One with the Heavenly Father (John 10:30).

It is our duty and that of our brothers in the Syrian Orthodox Church to witness to Christ in our Eastern region where He was born, preached, suffered, was buried and rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven, and sent down His Holy and Life Giving Spirit upon His holy Apostles.

All the meetings, the fellowship, the oral and written declarations meant that we belong to One Faith even though history had manifested our division more than the aspects of our unity.

All this has called upon our Holy Synod of Antioch to bear witness to the progress of our Church in the See of Antioch towards unity that preserves for each Church its authentic Oriental heritage whereby the one Antiochian Church benefits from its sister Church and is enriched in its traditions, literature and holy rituals.

Every endeavor and pursuit in the direction of the coming together of the two Churches is based on the conviction that this orientation is from the Holy Spirit, and it will give the Eastern Orthodox image more light and radiance, that it has lacked for centuries before.

Having recognized the efforts done in the direction of unity between the two Churches, and being convinced that this direction was inspired by the Holy Spirit and projects a radiant image of Eastern Christianity overshadowed during centuries, the Holy Synod of the Church of Antioch saw the need to give a concrete expression of the close fellowship between the two Churches, the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox for the edification of their faithful.

Thus, the following decisions were taken:

1. We affirm the total and mutual respect of the spirituality, heritage and Holy Fathers of both Churches. The integrity of both the Byzantine and Syriac liturgies is to be preserved.
2. The heritage of the Fathers in both Churches and their traditions as a whole should be integrated into Christian education curricula and theological studies. Exchanges of professors and students are to be enhanced.
3. Both Churches shall refrain from accepting any faithful from accepting any faithful from one Church into the membership of the other, irrespective of all motivations or reasons.
4. Meetings between the two Churches, at the level of their Synods, according to the will of the two Churches, will be held whenever the need arises.
5. Every Church will remain the reference and authority for its faithful, pertaining to matters of personal status (marriage, divorce, adoption, etc.).
6. If bishops of the two Churches participate at a holy baptism or funeral service, the one belonging to the Church of the baptized or deceased will preside. In case of a holy matrimony service, the bishop of the bridegroom's Church will preside.
7. The above mentioned is not applicable to the concelebration in the Divine Liturgy.
8. What applies to bishops equally applies to the priests of both Churches.
9. In localities where there is only one priest, from either Church, he will celebrate services for the faithful of both Churches, including the Divine Liturgy, pastoral duties, and holy matrimony. He will keep an independent record for each Church and transmit that of the sister Church to its authorities.
10. If two priests of the two Churches happen to be in a locality where there is only one Church, they take turns in making use of its facilities.
11. If a bishop from one Church and a priest from the sister Church happen to concelebrate a service, the first will preside even when it is the priest's parish.
12. Ordinations into the holy orders are performed by the authorities of each Church for its own members. It would be advisable to invite the faithful of the sister Church to attend.
13. Godfathers, godmothers (in baptism) and witnesses in holy matrimony can be chosen from the members of the sister Church.
14. Both Churches will exchange visits and will co-operate in the various areas of social, cultural and educational work.
    We ask God's help to continue strengthening our relations with the sister Church, and with other Churches, so that we all become one community under one Shepherd.

Damascus
12 November 1991

Patriarch Ignatios IV
of the Greek Antiochian Church

Patriarch Ignatius Zakka Iwas
of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch

 

[ArmyMatt]

By this logic, we should reject the existence of atoms because St. Basil in his weitings described the idea as nonsense; he believed in the five elements!

Saints are not infallible; they make mistakes. Only Tradition as a whole is infallible, and there is a difference between this Tradition and small-t traditions. Our bishops clearly have set out that the tradition concerning the OO is not part of theninfallible deposit of faith, by re-establishing certain forms of intercommunion and a process for further reunion.

I know that saints can make errors, but as jckstraw pointed out, this was not St Paisios speculating, like St Basil was concerning the elements of the world. saints make mistakes, but God does not, and when they do, it is when they speculate.

and some bishops have done what you said, others have not. some bishops communed Rome after the Schism back in the day, that does not mean they were ever a part of the Church after that.

 

[ArmyMatt]

St.Isaac honored Theodore of Mopsuestia - and he saw it more than necessary to see others like Theodore as "the Blessed Interpreter ( Theodore of Mopsuestia )", so I don't know how one can claim to honor him without seeing what he actually said repeatedly when pointing back to Theodore as his inspiration.

and St Cyprian of Carthage called Tertullian "The Master." that does not mean Tertullian is any less a heretic, or the fact that Cyprian honored him we need to relook at Montanism, or that St Cyprian was actually a secret Montanist.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

and St Cyprian of Carthage called Tertullian "The Master." that does not mean Tertullian is any less a heretic, or the fact that Cyprian honored him we need to relook at Montanism, or that St Cyprian was actually a secret Montanist.

Wouldn't matter since the fact is that those called Saints derived their theology from others people wanted to deem heretic and you cannot have it both ways, or be honest intellectually on the issue when trying to say "St. Isaac was not Nestorian" and ignore at several points where he referenced the writings of Theodore as his basis for theology/thought - AND, for that matter, received in the Assyrian Church of the East as a Bishop because of his reverence/advocacy for Theodore.

That said, trying to bring up Tertullian as a negative doesn't really work in light of the fact that Tertullian WAS one of the Church Fathers revered in the Church. And speaking of him being herectical is ironic since he sought to address herectical views:

• Book III Against Marcion by Tertullian (160-220): Tertullian defends the Christian view of Christ against an early heretic Marcion. In particular, Tertullian argues that Christ really was the incarnate God and Tertullian noted it best when saying "How will all this be true in Him, if He was not himself true....if He really had not in Himself that which might be crucified, might die, might be buried, and might rise again? [I mean] this flesh suffused with blood, built up with bones, interwoven with nerves, entwined with veins, [a flesh] which knew how to be born, and how to die, human without doubt, as born of a human being (On The Flesh of Christ)

Of course, many in more conservative circles do not like him because of the fact that he and others advocated for Subordinationism (which is prominent among the pre-Nicene Church Fathers when it came to their understanding of the Godhead - as shared before and here as well ) - and I've noted before to folks that Tertullian stands out in other ways as well since Tertullian, while affirming Mary's virginal conception of Jesus, did not hold that Mary was virginal in childbirth - in addition to his view that "brothers and sisters" of Christ were to be blood brothers and sisters (based on his views in Mark 3:31-35).

Nonetheless, although his view was not the consensus of the church when it came to the concept of being a virgin, we still honor him. At the end of the day, the Fathers honored Tertullian and so we must as well. It was Tertullian who helped Christians to keep themselves wise when it came to how they operated in the Roman Empire when approaching popular culture and politics in a manner that focused on the Church resisting popular culture and the wider society at every turn (the extreme example of this being Amish communities today) - and yet advocating for prayer/intercession be done for the leaders of his time(more in A Christian Economy and Why does Paganism scare Christians? and Orthodox Monarchs appointed by God?). There were more things beyond that which could be noted ...

 

[Commander Xenophon]

I know that saints can make errors, but as jckstraw pointed out, this was not St Paisios speculating, like St Basil was concerning the elements of the world. saints make mistakes, but God does not, and when they do, it is when they speculate.

and some bishops have done what you said, others have not. some bishops communed Rome after the Schism back in the day, that does not mean they were ever a part of the Church after that.

I don't quite follow...are you saying Patriarch Ignatius IV is not part of the Church?

 

[jckstraw72]

i said supposedly because i had never heard this before, and you hadn't shown evidence to that point. you said the same about Alexandria, but then i gave an example of someone who switched from Coptic Orthodox.

Anyways, well, that document is very sad. Of course, there are places within the Antiochian Patriarchate that certainly don't agree with this mindset, such as Hamatoura, and the Monastery of St. Silouan. And still, there are churches that baptize the non-Chalcedonians, thus manifesting the strictness of the Orthodox consciousness.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Anyways, well, that document is very sad.

How can you say that? How on Earth is healing a schism sad? St. Clement said schism is worse than heresy.

Here are the facts about the OO:

1. They are not monophysites; their Christology is exactly that of St. Cyril.
2. They are not universalists, Origenists or semi-Nestorians, so in that sense agree with the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
3. Severus of Antioch wrote the hymn Ho Monoges, which is the definitive expression of Christological correctness.
4. Before St. Justinian, most Chalcedonian bishops were opposed to Theopaschitism.
5. The Trisagion hymn as used by the OO is used in a Christological context; we also use it Christologically on Good Friday, during the procession with the cloth depicting the deceased body of our Lord, sandwiched between two other Christological hymns so the anathema against Peter Fullo is ridiculous.
6. The OOs are not monothelite, and thus comply, in essence, with the Sixth Ecumenical Council (the Maronites separated from the Syriac Orthodox as the latter anathematized monothelitism; the Maronites remained Monothelite until they reunited woth Rome).
7. The OOs have, unlike our own church, never embraced iconoclasm on the level of an entire Patriarchate or had any iconoclast bishops, and thus are compliant wifh the Seventh Ecumenical Council; nor were they guilty of the excesses of some iconodules who went past veneration and to worship, by chipping paint from the icons and dropping it in the Chalice, acts condemned at the same council
8. They have never used the filioque, and regard it as an error, and so comply with the Photian Synod (reckoned as council no. 8 by some)
9. With a few exceptions, such as the ignorant Coptic reader (not a full deacon) who had an argument with Fr. John Behr, they have enthusiastically embraced Palamism and have further provided scholarship helping to prove a new Patristic proof of it, in the form of the idea of essence/energies as is/becoming
10. They chrismate and communicate infanfs, baptize via triple immersion, and in all ofher key liturgical questions agree with us.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Wouldn't matter since the fact is that those called Saints derived their theology from others people wanted to deem heretic and you cannot have it both ways, or be honest intellectually on the issue when trying to say "St. Isaac was not Nestorian" and ignore at several points where he referenced the writings of Theodore as his basis for theology/thought - AND, for that matter, received in the Assyrian Church of the East as a Bishop because of his reverence/advocay for Theodore. It is what is is so we don't argue around it

no, I am saying your point about his referencing Theodore is not a strong one, what matters is if there is evidence from that time that can prove he was actually Nestorian. I know a lot of folks say he was, and he was in a Nestorian area at the time, and his writings had some of those leanings. but you see that with a lot of canonical saints at the time of heresies, but they were always in the one Church.

so yeah, I can say that I don't think he was Nestorian because I trust St Paisios more than any PhD on Church matters, and because the non-Chalcedonians venerate him. I highly doubt a group that called for the condemnation of Theodore (and rightly so) would venerate someone who is at one with that theology.

 

[jckstraw72]

cause it's not healing a schism. its unilaterally deciding to ignore a schism. declaring they will not receive people into the true Church ... insanity.

even Balamand didn't go that far - saying Orthodox and Catholic shouldn't proselytize one another, but not forbidding conversions.

it's really quite sad and thankfully, as i said, this line is not towed everywhere in the patriarchate.