Fr. Antony Paul: Understanding the Differences & Intersections in Coptic Orthodox and Chalcedonian

[Gxg (G²)]

One of the best presentations I've seen ever on the differences and similarities in Chalcedonian and Coptic Orthodox. Hoping this blesses someone and helps to answers questions for anyone in the future.

 

[dzheremi]

I'm sorry, but while there is much to agree with in this talk (e.g., Fr. Anthony's treatment of the fifth council), there are several glaring inaccuracies that I can't just let sit there.

The good Father Anthony Paul, like all naively but sincerely reunion-minded Copts it seems, appears to try to make things equal between the two parties by saying that the EO have received traditions about us that are not true, and we have done the same about them or about Chalcedon. While this is no doubt the case, the example that he chooses about our supposedly 'made-up stories', as he calls them (aside: horribly informal language throughout the talk, to the point of almost being insulting at points like this, though no doubt unintentionally...I dunno if that's part of the self-conscious 'Americanization' of the parish or what), is not a made up story at all! Or at least if we can believe the official minutes of Chalcedon (which Fr. Anthony must, given how he references them several times), then we should note that it is reported in the third session of the council (p. 43 of the second volume of the popular Price and Gaddis translation, done in 2005 as part of Liverpool University Press' excellent Translated Texts for Historians series) that HH St. Dioscorus wishes to attend, but is prevented from doing so by his guards (meaning those assigned to guard him; obviously if they were his guards in the sense of taking orders from him, he would've been able to go). This is reported (with suspicion) by Aetius, archdeacon and protonotary of the council. Only a little bit later, after sending another summons to HH St. Dioscorus to be delivered by Constantine of Bostra and another selected messenger, they received the following replies from HH St. Dioscorus himself, as recorded in their official notes, which were read aloud by Himerius, the lector and notary (p. 44, ibid):

Constantine bishop of the metropolis of Bostra said to Bishop
Dioscorus: ‘The holy council invites your holiness to present yourself before it. It is assembled in the martyrium of the holy and victorious martyr Euphemia.’
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I am under guard. Let them say if I am allowed to come.’
Acacius bishop of Ariaratheia said: ‘We were not sent to the hallowed magistriani but to your sacredness, to ask you to take the trouble to repair to the holy council assembled in the martyrium of the holy martyr Euphemia.’
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I am ready to appear at the holy and ecumenical council, but I am prevented.’

(Emphasis added.)

So no, Father, it is not a 'made-up story' that HH St. Dioscorus was prevented from attending. The imperial guards did indeed prevent him, as recorded by the council itself multiple times, although it was by that point clearly stacked against him anyway (making his subsequent response to the third summons -- essentially "do what you want, since you've already decided", as Fr. Anthony mentions -- entirely reasonable).

This is the problem with presentations like this one: while they are good in affirming our ardent desire for unity, as points they always seem to strike a note as though we are apologizing for the supposed 'foolishness' of our fathers or our position (as Father himself says that we did not separate for a good reason), even to the point sometimes of distorting or ignoring the historical record to make us seem 'guilty' of perpetuating falsehoods when we are not, as above. I don't know why we do this to ourselves. We have no shame before the EO or anyone, and it is not their place to dictate to us what is Orthodox, since we already are Orthodox, not by their benevolence but by our confession. Rather, the falsehood is with the Chalcedonians who paint Ephesus II as some 'Dioscorusian' cabal to exonerate a heretic and kill an Orthodox bishop despite its operating by the same principles by which HH St. Cyril and John of Antioch had reconciled only a few years prior (that is, on the basis of the confession of the separated one being found acceptable; this is also evident after Chalcedon, in the mercies of HH St. Timothy II accepting back any Chalcedonian by confession after only a short period of contrition), and despite HH St. Dioscorus not being in control of or issuing orders to anyone who beat Flavian (the guards who did so were the emperor's, not Dioscorus'; I am glad Father made that point).

I am perfectly willing to accept EO dyophysitism as Orthodox (note that I have said nothing against their faith above) within the bounds of their own fifth council, which corrected many of the errors rightly seen by our holy fathers who refused to sign on to the impious and heretical Tome of Leo which ascribes experiences and actions to natures in a manner akin to (not the same as, but uncomfortably close enough that we still cannot honestly be comfortable with it) Nestorius' party and their division of the divine and the human within Christ (a division which I am willing to grant is consistent with their use of language and philosophical terms, but that doesn't mean I would adopt them myself any more than I would adopt dyophysitism, when that too is alien to OO Christology). It is to their great credit that when those of the Chalcedonians saw their confession parasitically attached to by crypto-Nestorians (and actual Nestorians, as it was the boasting of the Nestorians in Persia that the Greeks and Romans now agreed with them which motivated HH Catholicos Babken II of the Armenians to look into Chalcedon, leading to the Council at Dvin at which Chalcedon was anathematized, along with Eutyches and others), they had this council which cast those people out, dealt with the anti-Cyrillian writings of people they had previously accepted, and so on. I emphatically agree with Fr. Anthony that if we had been allowed to participate in that council, we would likely be united already. I have said as much on this website to Chalcedonian posters. The trouble really is that to the EO, at least as far as I've been able to gather by discussing the matter with them (and not just here), you can't accept the fifth council without accepting the fourth -- all of the fourth (meaning the Tome, which is a non-starter; the deposition of HH St. Dioscorus, which rankles Copts in particular; the false narrative surrounding Ephesus II, which is not supported by the minutes of that council; etc).

All that said, I will never accept that history is anything other than what it is, as recorded in primary sources (i.e., the minutes of the actual council, which everyone agrees represent what actually happened). The good Father Anthony Paul ought to take another look at the minutes of Chalcedon and amend those parts of his talk that apologize for something we did not do, because it is a betrayal of the actual facts in the name of appearing 'ecumenical' to say what he has said. That is a shame.

A more minor point, but one that still raised an eyebrow from me, is the characterization of the Muslim invaders of Egypt as those who somehow 'liberated' us from Chalcedonian oppression. I guess in the techincal sense that the Byzantines lost control of the country, that could be claimed, but the narrative of Muslim 'liberators' is itself a later and polemical invention, primarily traced to HH Michael the Syrian, the 12th century Syriac Orthodox patriarch (so far too late to be commenting with any authority on how people of the 7th century must've felt at the time of the conquests).

The idea of Muslims as liberators of OO from EO oppression in any sense is generally not accepted today in academic circles (see, e.g., Suermann in Grypeou et al. 2006 The Encounter of Eastern Christianity with Early Islam), and has been called into question for well over a century by now (see, e.g., Butler 1902, who finds no primary source evidence for this view), despite its popularity with OO for some reason I cannot fathom. (I have seen the same discredited and baseless narrative repeated in interviews by no less a leader than the recently departed Syriac Orthodox Patriarch, HH Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas; it is recorded in his 2005 festschrift, Ktheeboth Hago).

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm sorry, but while there is much to agree with in this talk (e.g., Fr. Anthony's treatment of the fifth council), there are several glaring inaccuracies that I can't just let sit there.

The good Father Anthony Paul, like all naively but sincerely reunion-minded Copts it seems, appears to try to make things equal between the two parties by saying that the EO have received traditions about us that are not true, and we have done the same about them or about Chalcedon. While this is no doubt the case, the example that he chooses about our supposedly 'made-up stories', as he calls them (aside: horribly informal language throughout the talk, to the point of almost being insulting at points like this, though no doubt unintentionally...I dunno if that's part of the self-conscious 'Americanization' of the parish or what), is not a made up story at all! Or at least if we can believe the official minutes of Chalcedon (which Fr. Anthony must, given how he references them several times), then we should note that it is reported in the third session of the council (p. 43 of the second volume of the popular Price and Gaddis translation, done in 2005 as part of Liverpool University Press' excellent Translated Texts for Historians series) that HH St. Dioscorus wishes to attend, but is prevented from doing so by his guards (meaning those assigned to guard him; obviously if they were his guards in the sense of taking orders from him, he would've been able to go). This is reported (with suspicion) by Aetius, archdeacon and protonotary of the council. Only a little bit later, after sending another summons to HH St. Dioscorus to be delivered by Constantine of Bostra and another selected messenger, they received the following replies from HH St. Dioscorus himself, as recorded in their official notes, which were read aloud by Himerius, the lector and notary (p. 44, ibid):

Constantine bishop of the metropolis of Bostra said to Bishop
Dioscorus: ‘The holy council invites your holiness to present yourself before it. It is assembled in the martyrium of the holy and victorious martyr Euphemia.’
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I am under guard. Let them say if I am allowed to come.’
Acacius bishop of Ariaratheia said: ‘We were not sent to the hallowed magistriani but to your sacredness, to ask you to take the trouble to repair to the holy council assembled in the martyrium of the holy martyr Euphemia.’
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I am ready to appear at the holy and ecumenical council, but I am prevented.’

(Emphasis added.)

So no, Father, it is not a 'made-up story' that HH St. Dioscorus was prevented from attending. The imperial guards did indeed prevent him, as recorded by the council itself multiple times, although it was by that point clearly stacked against him anyway (making his subsequent response to the third summons -- essentially "do what you want, since you've already decided", as Fr. Anthony mentions -- entirely reasonable).

This is the problem with presentations like this one: while they are good in affirming our ardent desire for unity, as points they always seem to strike a note as though we are apologizing for the supposed 'foolishness' of our fathers or our position (as Father himself says that we did not separate for a good reason), even to the point sometimes of distorting or ignoring the historical record to make us seem 'guilty' of perpetuating falsehoods when we are not, as above. I don't know why we do this to ourselves. We have no shame before the EO or anyone, and it is not their place to dictate to us what is Orthodox, since we already are Orthodox, not by their benevolence but by our confession. Rather, the falsehood is with the Chalcedonians who paint Ephesus II as some 'Dioscorusian' cabal to exonerate a heretic and kill an Orthodox bishop despite its operating by the same principles by which HH St. Cyril and John of Antioch had reconciled only a few years prior (that is, on the basis of the confession of the separated one being found acceptable; this is also evident after Chalcedon, in the mercies of HH St. Timothy II accepting back any Chalcedonian by confession after only a short period of contrition), and despite HH St. Dioscorus not being in control of or issuing orders to anyone who beat Flavian (the guards who did so were the emperor's, not Dioscorus'; I am glad Father made that point).

I am perfectly willing to accept EO dyophysitism as Orthodox (note that I have said nothing against their faith above) within the bounds of their own fifth council, which corrected many of the errors rightly seen by our holy fathers who refused to sign on to the impious and heretical Tome of Leo which ascribes experiences and actions to natures in a manner akin to (not the same as, but uncomfortably close enough that we still cannot honestly be comfortable with it) Nestorius' party and their division of the divine and the human within Christ (a division which I am willing to grant is consistent with their use of language and philosophical terms, but that doesn't mean I would adopt them myself any more than I would adopt dyophysitism, when that too is alien to OO Christology). It is to their great credit that when those of the Chalcedonians saw their confession parasitically attached to by crypto-Nestorians (and actual Nestorians, as it was the boasting of the Nestorians in Persia that the Greeks and Romans now agreed with them which motivated HH Catholicos Babken II of the Armenians to look into Chalcedon, leading to the Council at Dvin at which Chalcedon was anathematized, along with Eutyches and others), they had this council which cast those people out, dealt with the anti-Cyrillian writings of people they had previously accepted, and so on. I emphatically agree with Fr. Anthony that if we had been allowed to participate in that council, we would likely be united already. I have said as much on this website to Chalcedonian posters. The trouble really is that to the EO, at least as far as I've been able to gather by discussing the matter with them (and not just here), you can't accept the fifth council without accepting the fourth -- all of the fourth (meaning the Tome, which is a non-starter; the deposition of HH St. Dioscorus, which rankles Copts in particular; the false narrative surrounding Ephesus II, which is not supported by the minutes of that council; etc).

All that said, I will never accept that history is anything other than what it is, as recorded in primary sources (i.e., the minutes of the actual council, which everyone agrees represent what actually happened). The good Father Anthony Paul ought to take another look at the minutes of Chalcedon and amend those parts of his talk that apologize for something we did not do, because it is a betrayal of the actual facts in the name of appearing 'ecumenical' to say what he has said. That is a shame.

Sorry - bu respectfully, as he and other Coptic priests/leaders have already noted, what matters is what the Bishops have said - and generally, converts are the main ones that tend to react rather than dealing with the history as Cradle have been emphasizing for sometime now. This is why I thank Fr. Anthony Paul for noting directly what he did when it comes to Chalcedon and several other issues, because it is not a hidden reality with what has been happening in the OO world. We already have HH Tawadros on the issue and that's really the bottom line in all of it with the work that has been happening when it comes to things signed - it is what it is on that one and it doesn't honor God or the Fathers with the "Us vs. Them" ideology when ethnic Egyptians have already said to converts "You are the only ones bringing in ideology saying nothing in Orthodoxy matters if it's Eastern - that does not represent us." Seen it at the parish I've been involved with (St. Mary's Coptic Orthodox Church) as well - It is very naive and a basic issue others don't want to deal with.

As an aside, plenty of professors and teachers speak in very down-to-earth manners and informal - no different than when I've talked with other priests/seen them share on ideas in-depth in ways you seen share in every day speech, so it'd be splitting hairs trying to raise issue because someone speaks in a very casual manner when what matters is whether the audience understood. It's insulting to Egyptians in many places when others assume they do not speak a certain way unless they're American - and that's a problem I've seen a lot.

That said, there's a lot of basis in understanding the context of why others note some of the stories are a bit made up when it comes to being prevented. Fr. John S. Romanides, a prominent Greek Orthodox scholar...and yes, I am aware of what is said on pg.44 in
Acts of the Council of Chalcedon by Richard Price, Michael Gaddis where it mentions to quote you brought up (The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon ) - that isn't the same as actually citing consistently what was said by all parties OR showing a grand conspiracy for being held up...and that's where things go awry when reading more into something than what was there. And that's a very big deal. Guards prevent for a Myriad of reasons, be it being aware of danger or weather being bad....the list goes on. So to assume the worse would not be necessary.


People assume that others presenting do so in saying the Fathers were 'foolish' while the bottom-line fact of what they are saying is that there was a severe limitation in language and geographical space impacts communications, as Father noted directly when it comes to hindsight and other seeing in hindsight how the times heightened things to the point where it was easy to react without understanding fully the other side. Imperial Politics do that a lot.



However, as is often the case with people coming from the Covert side and isolation, anything noting in humility that there were a lot of things that could have been communicated better is assumed to me "We're all wrong, huh!!!!!" and the stance one wants to take is that they HAVE to be all right in all things in order to be valid. That's not necessary as well and I don't know why people assume things were flawless in that era of time when Christ himself did not say that on humanity. The same man saying He was the Christ (As in St. Peter) also read past what Christ was called to do in Matthew 16 and Christ had to correct the source of the misunderstanding when noting how St. Peter missed it. We see the same exact thing with St. Peter and St. Paul having misunderstandings and them having to note it (II Peter 3:16) despite all of their interactions from Acts 15 to Galatians 1 and onward. It took conversation and humility on all sides.

This also goes right back to the issue of knowing theology can be hard to communicate - and any stance saying "We have nothing to be ashamed of" the moment others note "THis could have been said better" assumes (as happens with converts many times) that there can never be any allowance in noting things could have been done better. I don't know where it came into the picture that people were apologizing for anything since it was said VERY plainly that Coptic Orthodox do not need the permission of Easterns to be Orthodox - and the same goes in return. It was never just the Chalcedonians who were at fault in the entire exchange and there's enough problems on both sides.

The same goes for the issue of the Tome of Leo, considering several times that others had to consider how language can make others respond to things as if they are exactly the same as another thing dismissed when that's not the case - and as several within the Coptic world have noted the need to not react on the Tome itself since it gave clarification, that is something we have to wrestle with today.

As mentioned before in the past, We already have it where historically Nestorius agreed that the concept associated with him was something to be condemned even though he disagreed with it - as seen when he said in the Bazaar that “The goal of my earnest wish, then, is that God may be blessed on earth as in heaven. But as for Nestorius, let him be anathema… And would to God that all men by anathematizing me might attain to a reconciliation with God; for to me there is nothing greater or more precious than this”....but of course, Nestorius was very clear that he agreed with others even in misunderstanding what He said when they went against a concept he did not stand for. And this has continued in several ways. We see how the Assyrian Church of the East has been called "Nestorian" and condemned for somehow supporting Nestorianism when that's not true (and thank heavens for others from that world involved in Orthodoxy who can help to bridge the gap, such as East Meets East: Chalcedon in the Assyrian Church). For in regards to what has often been said by both the EO and the OO when speaking against others, the Assyrian Church of the East is not Nestorian, rather that Nestorius was a follower of the Theodore and Diodorus (although the "two sons" theory proposed by Diodore is rejected by both Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius). 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. Moreover, the Coptic Christology has its origins in Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria, and the Eastern Orthodox Christology bases itself primarily on those same two saints, as well as on the "middle road" outlined by St. Leo the Great and upheld at Chalcedon (even though Nestorius actually agreed with the Tome of St. Leo and noted it). Ultimately, as all of those theologians and hierarchs sought to hold their theology consistent with the Gospel as it was recieved, no appeal to antiquity on the particular language of the formula for the Incarnation will work for either side. Rather, as another noted best, it is only in the implications of our specific language that any possible persuasion can take place.

Others who have done an excellent job covering the issue come to mind such as the Greek priest, Fr. John Romanides (and to be clear, a sampling of Fr. John Romanides’ works can be found here at the Romanity.org website). It is not a new revelation that Nestorius is documented to have believed the Tome of Leo - and Fr. Romanides stated that St. Leo the Great of Rome and Dioscorus of Alexandria are Orthodox - as seen here when he says the followng:

​

“What we are here concerned with is the evidence already presented by this writer as far back as 1959-60 and especially 1964 that both Leo and Dioscoros are Orthodox because they agree with St. Cyril Of Alexandria, especially with his Twelve Chapters, even though both had been considered heretical by the other side here represented.”​

For reference:

• 
  
  
  • Discussion about Father John Romanides' Paper “One
    Physis or Hypostasis of God the Logos Incarnate” - Orthodox Unity/Orthodox Joint Comission
  • highlights in the debate over theodore of mopsuestia's ...
  • 
    ...
  • 
    Coptic Interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council
  • st. cyril's "one physis or hypostasis of god the ... - Romanity
  • The Basis of the Acceptance of the Tome of Leo - Mystagogy

Sergius Bulgakov (well known Orthodox scholar) pointed out how it's not surprising that Nestorius declared himself to be in full agreement with the Tome of Leo the Great, just as he would have declared full agreement with the Council of Chalcedon if he had lived to see it
Although Nestorius was invited to the council of Chalcedon, he died before he could attend. and there are many modern scholars believing that he was to be rehabilitated at Chalcedon, as the Leonine/Theodorean Christology was to become the official Christology and unity would be restored to the Church as it returned to its pre-Ephesine state (as goes the previous goal). But the Tome of Leo shifted a lot of things..

And to be clear, there are several scholars/theologians with the OO who have already noted work with the Assyrian Church of the East and do not revile Nestorius. They condemn Nestorianism but it has been long discussed where what Nestorius actually taught was NOT Nestorianism (condemned later in regards to doctrinal concept and rightly so). That is not a new reality when keeping up with either the OO or EO world.

All of that goes back into noting how complicated things are when it comes to the history of the Church. And as Fr. Anthony Paul already noted, we already see where others have worked across the isle for sometime with the blessing of our leaders - and helping others connecting the dots with understanding. I am Thankful for other works such as John Anthony McGuckin's St. Cyril of Alexandria The Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts" AND several other places.

​

And as it concerns current work together with the Copts and Easterns, it is not a secret. WE SEE that already in the example of Bishop Kallistos Ware - who spoke at the Coptic “Orthodox Women’s Ministry” conference...an Inter-Orthodox conference event that took place in Heythrop College, University of London, in the United Kingdom from Friday, September 11, 2015, to Sunday, September 13, 2015. It was a new lay movement in the Orthodox Church blessed by His Holiness Patriarch Tawadros II, of the Coptic Orthodox Church - and the "two main objectives were to establish a general understanding of the role of women from a historical, theological and practical perspective in today's world; as well as to cultivate a deeper appreciation for the call to holiness for men and women in the life of the Church."

• 
  
  
  • Women's Role in the Church: Yesterday and Today for ...

​

We also see the same happening as occurred directly (as a recent example) when Fr. John Behr's work was shared at one of the Coptic Parishes....specifically, Fr. John Behr from St. Stephen Coptic Orthodox Church

​

And of course, outside of that, there are more places beyond that. Was thankful (as an example) for
this interesting podcast on the subject of evangelism and seeing the shared history.

• Evangelism - For his last class on Evangelism, Fr. Chad Hatfield, the Chancellor of St. Vladimir’s Seminary, hosted three priests for a panel responding to questions raised by the Seminarians. The three priests were Fr. John Parker from Mt. Pleasant, SC. and Chairman of the Dept of Evangelism of the OCA, Fr. Michael Elias, pastor of St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church, Brooklyn, NY, and Fr. Michael Sorial, pastor of St. Anianas Coptic Orthodox Church, Princeton, NJ. All three are SVOTS grads.

• October 8, 2015 Our Common Father: Saint Cyril
  The Very Rev. Dr. John Anthony McGuckin, renowned author of 25 books, several of which are published by SVS Press, presented the keynote address at this year's Education Day at St. Vladimir's Seminary. Fr. John outlined a brief history of St. Cyril, highlighting the point that the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox traditions agree with much of the saint's theology.

I appreciated "In his Spiritual Instructions", where, Saint Dorotheus says:

“Suppose a circle whose center is God and whose rays are different paths. Every person of the created world walks along one of the rays toward the center, where Christ God is (whether the person realizes it or not). He approaches his brother walking along a different ray toward God, the center itself. The more they distance themselves from one another, the more they distance themselves from God.”


​

A more minor point, but one that still raised an eyebrow from me, is the characterization of the Muslim invaders of Egypt as those who somehow 'liberated' us from Chalcedonian oppression. I guess in the techincal sense that the Byzantines lost control of the country, that could be claimed, but the narrative of Muslim 'liberators' is itself a later and polemical invention, primarily traced to HH Michael the Syrian, the 12th century Syriac Orthodox patriarch (so far too late to be commenting with any authority on how people of the 7th century must've felt at the time of the conquests).

The idea of Muslims as liberators of OO from EO oppression in any sense is generally not accepted today in academic circles (see, e.g., Suermann in Grypeou et al. 2006 The Encounter of Eastern Christianity with Early Islam), and has been called into question for well over a century by now (see, e.g., Butler 1902, who finds no primary source evidence for this view), despite its popularity with OO for some reason I cannot fathom. (I have seen the same discredited and baseless narrative repeated in interviews by no less a leader than the recently departed Syriac Orthodox Patriarch, HH Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas; it is recorded in his 2005 festschrift, Ktheeboth Hago).

As it concerns this last point, we already know where we both stand on the issue of Muslims (and that has been referenced before here in Muslims and God as well as several other places).... so I don't care to go into too much depth on the issue here when it comes to claiming a stance is automatically a 'later polemical invention' when others present in the nation of Egypt have been saying this for centuries - and they don't apologize for it either.

​

The senior Coptic bishop praised Muslims in Al-Khosous attempting to protect Christians during a recent bout of sectarian violence that left five people dead - stating “The loving Muslims who protected Christians and the church during the deadly clashes in Al-Khosous highlighted the mistakes of the fanatics and showed the true meaning of religion and love....Our only consolation is that the victims gave their lives as a testimony to God and their pure souls ascended to heaven…" (more here for reference)

• Bishop Moussa meets with US Congressional delegation

Bishop Moussa has done extensive work with regards to being the Bishop of Youth and organizing many conferences in which prominent Egyptian politicians and intellectuals give lectures to aid Coptic youths to increase their participation in national events and he also has coordinated with the Arab Christian-Islamic Group of Dialogue in organizing a conference "discussing the impact of the September 11 attacks on national unity [between Muslims and Christians] as well as discussing how to create a proper climate where Muslim and Christian youths can work together.

Bishop Angelos has also spoken on the issue in regards to Egypt with the Christians and Muslims:

​

In my personal experience, with what I have experienced with the actual church I have attended before in the ETOC (as noted inDec 5, 2015#4
), I have witnessed first hand where Ethiopian Christians took a public stand noting how they have the Gospel and yet seek solidarity with Muslims in encouraging them. It is a big deal being blessed to go to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church I went to - and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians and Ethiopian Muslims have done this for sometime:

​

Of course, beyond modern day examples such as that and those of Bishop Moussa and Bishop Angelos, there are the interactions of the Fathers with the Muslims in their beginning stages onward.

As said before, there was actually an excellent book on the issue entitled The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam by Sidney H. Griffith

• • The Cross Under the
  • Crescent - Article | First Things
  • The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque - Hamline Law
  • Review: Sidney Griffith, the Church in the Shadow of the Mosque
  • The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims

​

And Historically, there has been significant scholarship pointing out the issue on how Islam and the Church had several phases. The early violence in the Republic of Rome was replicated in the Eastern Roman Empire since political violence appeared in the Byzantine Empire from 400 CE to 600 CE. As it concerns the Crusades, it's often forgotten that the wars started between the Byzantine Empire and the Islamic armies that were trying to conquer territories. Other Christian groups such as the Ghassanids and the Nestorian Lakhmids rallied to join the Muslims who were expanding since they were greatly mistreated under the Byzantine rule - even as it concerns violence done to them as others claimed Christ and harmed those who did not agree with their own idea of who Christ was.

The Nestorians, the Maronites, the Melkites, Chaldeans, Jacobites, Anchorites, Arians, Ebionites, Paulicians, Assyriani and a host of other churches sprung up or were influenced by the hermits living in the deserts and mountains of Syria, all seeking and trying to explain the mystery of God, his love for humanity and his compassion for the salvation of our souls though the personage, whether dual or monophysite in nature, of Jesus the Christ.

So many of these individual churches evolved that the Byzantines, seeking religious unity for the purpose of an empirical dominance based in Constantinople, began to persecute these churches, primarily because of the monophysite/diophysite controversy (referring to the single or dual natures of Christ) as well as their refusal to accept the final verdicts of the council of Nicaea. One can visit the caves in central Turkey, in Cappadocia, to see where these Christians would have had to hide from marauding Byzantine raiding parties who would put to death any and all heretics who were unlucky enough to be caught. The Muslim Arab armies invaded the region at the request of the local Christians who formed a coalition called the Ghassanids. Oppressed under Byzantine tyranny, the Christians of Syria sought the protection of the Arab Muslims, fellow Semites who were far more lenient and tolerant than their fellow Christian Greek rulers of the eastern Roman empire.

References on the issue are the following:

• -"Damascus after the Muslim Conquest: Text and Image in Early Islam By Nancy Khalek
• Perpetua of Carthage: Portrait of a Third-Century Martyr
  By William Farina

We also can see what occurred with Mar Gabriel (d.667), the abbot of the monastery at Qartmin, which is located in the mountains of the Tur abdin in South-east Turkey. As Qartmin was a stronghold for those rejecting Byzantine Orthodox Christianity, Mar Gabriel saw Muslim rule as an opportunity.

More can be found in the biographical work Life of Gabriel of Qartmin (Life of Gabriel of Qartmin, ed. Andrew Palmer : Andrew Palmer : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive ) / (Monk and Mason on the Tigris Frontier ).

Specifically, as his biographer said, "Mar Gabriel preferred the advent of the Arabs to the oppression of the Byzantines, so he gave assistance and helped them." It is through the life of others like Mar Gabriel in which can see how Syrian Orthodox Christians aided Muslim conquests rather than simply being helpless looking on. As a point of fact, we can see how it under Muslim rule from the 7th century onward, Syriac Christians wrote the most extensive descriptions extant of early Islam...a vast body of texts indicating a very complicated and ever-evolving range of religious /cultural exchanges that took place from the 7th to the 9th century. Dr. Sebastian Brock has also noted the same reality, as he is the leading scholar in the world on Syriac Christology - and this was pointed out in his work entitled "Studies in Syriac Christianit(Bookos.org) - Scribd"
[Sebastian P. Brock] Studies in Syriac Christianit(Bookos.org) ).

Scholars have been verifying this for some time - and for reference on the actual works on the issue.

• Monk and Mason on the Tigris Frontier: The Early History of Tur `Abdin (1990)
• When Christians First Met Muslims: A Sourcebook of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam Paperback ( 2015 )
  by Michæl Philip Penn
• Envisioning Islam: Syriac Christians and the Early Muslim World (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion) Hardcover – June 24, 2015 by Michael Philip Penn

So at the end of the day, I will continue to note rather directly where it is always going to be a bit baseless whenever someone comes into a camp (i.e. Coptic Orthodoxy) bringing other sentiments with them that have nothing to do with how other Monks and Christian servants have operated for centuries. People who don't like Muslims simply don't like Muslims - and they will always ignore whatever good has been done by them and ignore the scholarship as well...but that's another issue.

 

[dzheremi]

Please do not dismissively faux-apologize to me at the beginning of your disingenuous dismissals of historical sources. That is a very unhelpful sort of reply to the demonstrated inaccuracies present in the talk. As I wrote, I find much to agree with in it, and appreciate that he gave it, but do wish that those of the OO communion would not present this overly apologetic (not in the classical sense of 'apologetics') version of history that has us at fault for things that there is no fault in affirming, such as what the minutes of the Council of Chalcedon -- which he references several times in an effort to show his impartiality -- actually show with regard to the circumstances of HH St. Dioscorus' trial. They are what actually happened. Overzelaous converts who can't 'deal with the history' (a peculiar wording, given the context of this discussion) did not place them there. And nobody is talking about any kind of 'hidden reality of the OO world', whatever that is supposed to mean.

If you merely wish to post things so as to say "this is what this priest says", then fine, but historical inaccuracies ought not be entertained out of a mistaken sense of fidelity to priests or bishops as though they cannot be wrong about anything. It's not as though anything has invalidated Fr. Anthony's overall point (which, again, I agree with: we ought to, and do, sincerely desire unity with the EO, and we ought to, and do, praise God for our improved relations, and pray that they continue in that direction in the future), but it would definitely be stronger without claiming that we are making things up when we are not, or that the Muslims were our liberators when there is no evidence of any OO person claiming that until several centuries after the fact.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Please do not dismissively faux-apologize to me at the beginning of your disingenuous dismissals of historical sources.

D.

Respectfully, if the best you can do is react without actually giving a response, then please do not waste people's time as if you were concerned for discussion when you already showed yourself disingenuous in the response. You began by saying "I'm sorry...but while I agree" - then you went on to note several things on the presentation.

My saying "I'm sorry..." is somehow seeking to 'faux apologize' - but you have freedom to do so yourself dismissing Fr. Anthony at several points in assuming (A) he is automatically naive and (B) he is simply Americanized. That's petty - but not necessary.

I noted I disagreed at several levels with your response and noted there were things said that people from a CONVERT status generally say whenever Cradle Orthodox discuss things. Saying "Sorry" does not mean "I apologize..." - it means I do not see the logic in your statements. And at several points you already avoided historical sources and I addressed each/every historical source you tried to bring up - yet I have not seen one addressing on your part for what was given. That is and always will be disingenuous...

Respectfully, I really don't care for selective argumentation on that issue. Either one wants to deal with what the Fathers and Church said - or they don't. And that goes for dealing with it at ALL points rather than those you are not comfortable with. It is what it is - If you want to make things on a personal level as if that does anything, that's your choice. It's not a wise one nor is it something I will engage in with you.

That is a very unhelpful sort of reply to the demonstrated inaccuracies present in the talk.

It's illogical speaking on inaccuracies with the talk since several things Fr. Paul noted in consistency with HH Tawadros and others have said were ignored. I don't care to do intellectual dishonesty on that issue and it's not helpful when one argues something past what others say.

Again, it is what it is - and you already given a response on the the talk/several points where Fr. Paul addresses every supposed inaccuracy you brought up since they're not new ....and they don't deal with what the Bishops OR the Pope have said.

As I wrote, I find much to agree with in it, and appreciate that he gave it, but do wish that those of the OO communion would not present this overly apologetic (not in the classical sense of 'apologetics') version of history that has us at fault for things that there is no fault in affirming, such as what the minutes of the Council of Chalcedon -- which he references several times in an effort to show his impartiality -- actually show with regard to the circumstances of HH St. Dioscorus' trial. They are what actually happened. Overzelaous converts who can't 'deal with the history' (a peculiar wording, given the context of this discussion) did not place them there. And nobody is talking about any kind of 'hidden reality of the OO world', whatever that is supposed to mean.

No one said anything about you not finding much to agree with the presentation. What was focused on was where you disagreed with him and noted that he was saying things a certain way when he was not, specifically on his noting where others make things up and his notice on how others misunderstood at several points.

As said before, it is you and you alone who made a claim that folks were apologizing. That is a typical response of others who are Converts - and it does not deal with what the Bishops or HH have said on the issue at multiple points. Discussing where things could have been expressed better is not the same as apologizing for being OO and that is part of why others have said it will always be reactionary if anything cannot be understood as needing further clarification and being limited at the time when it comes to seeing what peple were actually saying.

This also goes with ignoring where HH Dioscorous TRIAL was seen differently by several OOs over the centuries and this also goes for the different meetings over the centuries addressing the minutes of the Council of Chalcedon.

It is important to actually deal with what Cradle understand rather than bringing in ideologies that don't deal with OO thought since Cradle OO don't have a mindset that all things EO are bad and all things OO are good - nor do they ignore that both sides needed to discuss things in a better manner.


HH St. Dioscorus' trial, some review of early history is needed before seeing what he was facing - and why it is a very minute point focusing on him being prevented by guards...or assuming that means he was somehow set up to fail. It was noted directly that there were some things even the Saint did not reveal fully:

After the reading of the foregoing epistle [St. Leo's Tome], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be thememory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who doesnot so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.

from Session II of the 4th Ecumenical Council​

What the Egyptians protested at the 4th session of the Council was the emperor's insistence on having a new definition of the Faith. More directly, in this they were defending what the Fathers had agreed at Nicaea. Adding to things the nuanced language used by St. Leo the Great (which he later clarified, even though it was still later) about the two natures, and the attempt to impose Canon 28 about the position of Constantinople, it's not difficult to see how our Fathers were simply trying to abide by their understanding of tradition. That is something that impacts us still TODAY when we cannot get beyond it and realize "This is where the confusion came from.."

But there's also the reality that there was consistency that many of our Fathers understood well when it came to Pope Leo unified with Cyril - and that is a very significant issue since we already see how Dioscorus would not let Pope Leo's Tome be read.

Also, as said at Chalcedon:

" After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus?"

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties." (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451])​

We cannot avoid the ways that St. Dioscorus helped Eutychus by association on a very deep level. When Eutychus appealed to the Eastern and Oriental Patriarches, in particularly, to St Dioscorus (as the 25th Patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church, on the pretext that he is teaching the doctorine of the "The One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos"), Pope Disocorus absolved Eutychus' excommunication because Eutyches did not tell him the full ideology he held to. Of course, Pope Disocorus discovered that Eutyches has lied to him and was teaching a heresy and subsequently excommunicated Eutyches in a local Coptic Council.

Now of course, we know that Even Dioscorus claimed he condemned Eutyches (although he was the one who ran the kangaroo court that exonerated Eutyches at Ephesus in 449). And that is something we have to wrestle with. St. Dioscorus, safeguarded the wildcard Eutyches and was condemned alongside him. At the time, the OO later rejected Eutyches, and Dioscorus' protection of him had more to do with methodology / politics, but the point stands that Dioscorus communed a heretic who did a lot o f harm to others and didn't repent of this (so far as I know).


When the minutes were read in Ephesus 449, Dioscorus felt that these bishops ignored that Eutyches clearly agreed the consubstantiality of Christ's humanity, and therefore, felt that it was a council of Nestorians that he had to condemn and overthrow that wanted to condemn Alexandrian tradition of "one nature" - and I recommend that if you want to get an OO perspective (very balanced view, and not polemical), read Fr. VC Samuel's "The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined," which is available on Amazon. It's good that it is a non-Chalcedonian account, as well as being probably the top publications regarding the issue if Chalcedon, and the issues of nature and wills that have formed as a result of that and being excellent sources regarding the political situation at the time....but the one by V.C Samuels (who was a priest of the Indian Syrian Orthodox Church) is among the most easy-to-read works on the issue.

​

One can examine what occurred with Serveus and see the same dynamics with misunderstanding at play:

• 
  
  • Severus of Antioch’s Objection To The Council Of Chalcedon : A Re-Assessment | Indian Orthodox Herald - Breaking Catholicate, Malankara, Indian Orthodox Church News And Doctrinal Information - Part 4

• 
  
  • Severus of Antioch's objections to the Council of Chalcedon: a re-assessment

At the end of the day, in all of what we’re saying, people are able to recognize that others aren’t flawless in how they dealt with things. John McGuckin noted this in examining the administration of the Coptic Patriarch known as Cyril of Alexandria in the fifth century, as he pointed out Cyril’s extensive support of Christian domination of pagans and the aggressiveness of Egyptian monks toward paganism and demonstrating that “harassment of paganism by the monks…was by then an established custom of the Alexandrian church.” He also noted how that the fifth century was one where toleration of other religious beliefs (i.e. Judaism and Paganism) was seen as a non-option by Christians and this was evidenced by how “monks of Egypt in this period are frequently found destroying the ancient pagan shrines and idols, at least wherever they could get away with it, where local pagan opposition was ineffective.”

Even with defending St. Dioscorus, we need to be honest about behavior at many points he did which cannot be defended simply because he is one of our Saints. We have to remember the Robber council (which has never been viewed as Ecuminical by the OO church - for there were just too many Canonical Issues with it).

I'm reminded of how at one point the Copts became more and more extreme until finally some of them claimed Christ is just God and not human. There was a fight over this that led to the Second Council of Ephesus in 449, where a large group of monks showed up to intimidate anyone who opposed the bishop of Alexandria. If any bishop or priest on the other side tried to write an accurate account of the proceedings, a bunch of monks would take the pen out of his hands and break his fingers. And again, It was so violent and dangerous that the monks actually beat the patriarch of Constantinople to death. It is aptly called the Gangster Synod. ..and the violence alone is pretty amazing. Consequently, as far as I'm aware, the Egyptians basically moved the ecclesiastical world away from Rome and Constantinople.

Part of why the East condemned St. Dioscorus was that he had very despotic behavior at the "Robber Synod" conducted by him in Ephesus in 449. Again, at that illegitimate synod St. Flavian, the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, was severely beaten and he died three days later.

As said best elsewhere:

In 449 A.D. a synod was called to impress on Eutyches and his followers the condemnation of Monophysitism issued by Pope St. Leo the Great. The heretics took over the council and, under the auspices of the Emperor, deposed the orthodox bishops. This was immediately condemned by the Pope as the "Robber Synod." In condemning the Monophystite heresy, Pope St. Leo gave his famous Tome. The patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, who ruled the Robber Synod with an iron hand, refused to allow the pope’s Tome to be read. Pope St. Leo condemned the council and declared its members to be deposed from their offices as bishops. Note that no Eastern bishops called this declaration a misuse of Patriarchal authority. During the followup Council of Chalcedon, the Pope directed the council to depose Dioscorus if he persisted in his heresy; to restore the bishops who had been deposed by that Synod; to reinstate bishops of that Synod who were truly repentant; and to issue a definition of faith that reflected Leo’s teaching in the Tome.​

"Robber Synod" (Latrocinium) at Ephesus in 449 (where St. Dioscorus killed St. Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople...and that is NOT cool under any circumstances). The head robber, St. Dioscorus, was Patriarch of Alexandria, at that time the valid successor to St. Mark. The Non-Chalcedonians still regard the Latrocinium as an ecumenical council and refer to it as "Ephesus II. The Robber's Synod is something that doesn't help at all when trying to defend him since it not accepted by the Church as a whole, and did not fall into the consensus of belief - Dioscorus strong arming the council and beating St Flavian to death via mob violence does not help the case.

And of course, as a point of fact, Ethiopian Orthodox reject Eutyches (alsio involved in the Robber's Synod), who is believed to have taught that in Christ the human Nature was absorbed by the divine Nature....but Dioscorus, whom the Council of Chalcedon deposed, is accepted (as the Council of 451 did not believe that Dioscorus was a heretic at that point and Dioscorus did not deny the continuance of Godhead and manhood in the One Christ after their union ) - for the Ethiopian Orthodox, Tewahido" is the Ethiopian term (meaning "made one") which is the best expression conveying the faith of the Church, since it emphasizes the inseparable unity of the Godhead and manhood in the Person of Christ.

Nonetheless, his behavior is something that can’t be defended when it comes to the violence and ways he handled things.

And again, things don't do really help establish consistency when one like St. Dioscorus was trying to keep out St. Leo when Leo addressed the very mess that St. Dioscorus allowed. Pope Leo opposed Eutyches s extreme theology for mixing and blending the natures of Christ. ...addressing the severe error of the Robber Synod.

On Leo's Tome, as he noted:

He is God by reason of the fact that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God; [John 1:1]. He is human by reason of the fact that ;the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us; [John 1:14]. He is God by reason of the fact that ;all things have been made through him, and without him nothing was made [John 1:3]. He is human by reason of the fact that he was made out of a woman, made under the law[Gal. 4:4].

The fact that it was flesh which was born reveals his human nature, while the
fact that he was born of a virgin gives evidence of the divine power. The state of infancy proper to a child is exhibited by the meanness of his cradle; the greatness of the Most High is declared by the voices of the angels. The one whom Herod sets out to kill is like an ungrown human being, but the one whom the Magi worship with humble joy is the Lord of all. Lest the fact that his flesh was the veil of deity go unrecognized, the voice of God thundered from heaven as early as the time at which he came to the baptism ministered by his forerunner John: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased [Matt. 3:17]. So the one whom the devils cunning tempted as a human being is the same one to whom the angel services were rendered as God. Plainly it is a human think to hunger and thirst and get tired and sleep. But to satisfy five thousand men with bread and to bestow on a Samaritan woman living water whose consumption enables its drinker to thirst no more, to walk on the surface of the sea without sinking and to moderate ;the swellings of the waves; when a storm has come up that is a divine thing without question. But let us pass over much of the evidence and sum the matter up.

It is not an act of one and the same nature to weep over a friend;s death in an access of pity and to summon that very friend back to life with the power of a word after opening the grave in which he had been buried for four days; or to hand from the cross and to cause the stars to tremble in their courses after turning day into night; or to be pierced with nails and to open the gates of paradise to the faith of a their. By the same token, it is not an act of one
and the same nature to say,;I and the Father are one; [John 10:30], and to say ;The Father is greater than I; [John 14:28]. Even though there is, in our Lord Jesus Christ, one person of God and of a human being, nevertheless the principle in virtue of which both share in glory is another. A humanity inferior to the Father comes to him from us, and a divinity equal to the Father comes to him from the Father. Because of this unity of person, which must be understood to subsist in a twofold nature, we read that the Son of man came down from heaven (since the Son of God took on flesh from the Virgin of whom he was born), and conversely we say that the Son of God was crucified and buried (even though he endured these things not in that divine nature in virtue of which, as Only Begotten, he is coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of his human nature). Consequently we all also confess in the creed that the only-begotten Son was crucified and buried, in accordance with the words of the apostle: For if they had known, they would never have crucified
the Lord of glory [1 Cor. 2:8].​

That said, we cannot avoid how the EO do follow St Cyril's theology (even though I also believe St Cyril himself prefered "One Nature of the Incarnated Logos" ) - and of course, personally, I stand with other priests/Bishops in that the Christology of Both St.Leo and St.Dioscorus is fully Orthodox and in line with St Cyri of Alexandria. The attacks from both sides things got out of order (where the OO called EO folks Nestorians and they responded in kind calling OO folks Monophysites). St. Dioscorus believed the Two Natures comprised the unity of the natures - and with how difficult things were then, it's no surprise to see why things got hard to hear. A lot of heresies either Started in Egypt or ended up there - so nuance was a big deal.

And as another EO said best:

Dioscorus represented a somewhat extreme / uncompromising position in adherence to St. Cyril on a formulaic level (rather than on the essence of St. Cyril's concern - which was to preserve the single subjectivity of Christ). St. Cyril accepted language that described "two natures" in his later language, and the Council of Chalcedon mirrors / adopts much of his language in the christology he forwarded while negotiating with the Orthodox Syrians (not the Nestorians).

So we can also claim to follow St. Cyril - that isn't at all to say the OO doesn't follow him. We just emphasize different parts / periods of his writing, and to different degrees of rigor (we also accept other wordings of christology, like those of Leo). I think this, along with the 5th council, can provide the theological grounds for the kind of mutual recognition.

I don't know what happens with Dioscorus, though. You say he was only condemned for not showing up at his defense, but so far as I'm aware his condemnation stemmed from his refusal to put Eutyches away in submission to the local councils of Rome and (I think) Constantinople. It was the same thing that got the Syrians in trouble for a bit after the Council of Ephesus (refusal to put away Nestorius), even though they weren't Nestorian....

Cyril and the Syrians engaged in mutual recognition through jointly written documents and recommunion. .... ​

On the issue, I'm glad for what another EO friend of mine recommended to me when it came to this excellent paper by the Late Father John Romanides, an EO scholar with a very unbiased view of the events that have been seen as the main cause of beef between the EO and OO world - as He was heavily involved in the talks that ceased in the early 90s and you can also see OO and EO comments from leading bishops below.

• ST. CYRIL'S "ONE PHYSIS OR HYPOSTASIS OF GOD THE LOGOS INCARNATE" AND CHALCEDON

T
Politics always impacts everything.



Believers did act quite pagan at times (unfortunately) when trying to establish what was or wasn't true about who Christ was......with regards to violence when considering the history of the Church - specifically on the ways that violence (As much as it's noted to be something not done to other non-believers on the outside) was something that was used/advocated toward believers. For reference, I am reminded of the book "Jesus Wars" by Philip Jenkins, which is indeed an amazing one - very AMAZING read on a host of levels in light of how Philip Jenkins is able to communicate complex ideas and complicated concepts in a manner that preserves their integrity to a wide audience and at the same time renders them as a fascinating... And I was so thankful for the ways he detailed the ways that militancy was done by the Church at various points. For a brief excerpt:

May those who divide Christ be divided with the sword, may they be hewn in pieces, may they be burned alive! – Second Council of Ephesus, 449​

In 449, the leading Fathers of the Christian church met in Ephesus, in Asia Minor, to debate pressing theological issues. At a critical moment, a band of monks and soldiers took control of the meeting hall, forcing bishops to sign a blank paper on which the winning side later filled in its own favored statement. The document targeted the patriarch of Constantinople, Flavian, one of the three or four greatest clerics in the Christian world. Yelling “Slaughter him!” a mob of monks attacked Flavian, beating him so badly that he died a few days later. So outrageous was the intimidation that the ultimate winners in the conflict invalidated this whole council. They repudi[bless and do not curse]ated it as a Latrocinium—which loosely means, a Gangster Synod.

From later history, we know of many episodes when Christians would resort to violence, especially against members of other faiths, but in this instance, the different sides agreed on so much. Both factions accepted the same Scriptures and the same view of the church and the hierarchy, and both agreed that Jesus Christ was God incar[bless and do not curse]nate, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Where they disagreed so violently was over the nature of Christ. Flavian’s enemies, and their monkish militia, believed that Christ existed in a single nature in which the divine dominated. They felt that by failing to proclaim this truth, by advocating a Christ in Two Natures, Flavian’s party had betrayed the core of Christianity. Literally, they thought, Flavian had divided Christ.

From a modern point of view, we are baffled to see such extraordinary violence unleashed over what might appear to be a trivial philosophical row. Surely, we might think, these debates involved over-fine distinctions quite as trivial as the proverbial disputes over the number of angels who could sit on the head of a pin. Just what could have caused such bitter hatred? In fact, the conflict involves a paradox that is quite central to the Christian faith. Christians must believe that God is wholly human and wholly divine, but it is easy for a believer to stray too far in one direction or the other. Either we might think of Christ purely as God, in which case he is no longer human, has no share in our human experience, and becomes a di[bless and do not curse]vinity in the sky like Zeus or Thor; or else, in contrast, we focus so much on his humanity that we underplay the divine element and deny the Incarnation. We would preach a Christ of two natures and two minds, literally a schizophrenic being. According to his ene[bless and do not curse]mies—unfairly and inaccurately—that was Flavian’s sin, and brutal violence was the only appropriate response to his gross insult to the Son of God.

The violence was unforgivable, and so were all the acts of persecution and forced conformity. But in one sense, ancient Christians were exactly right to be so passionate about their causes, if not the means by which they pursued them. Far from being philosophical niceties, the central themes in the religious debates really were criti[bless and do not curse]cal to the definition of Christianity, and to the ways in which the faith would develop over the coming centuries. The Christ controversies did, and do, have immense consequences, for culture and politics as much as for ​

If you merely wish to post things so as to say "this is what this priest says", then fine, but historical inaccuracies ought not be entertained out of a mistaken sense of fidelity to priests or bishops as though they cannot be wrong about anything.

Who said anything about fidelity? That's bringing in an attempt to read into things personal motivations and that has ZERO to do with actual response to what was said. Shall I say you're loyal to patterns of thinking you had when you were a Roman Catholic based on your response here? I could - but it'd have zero to do with the actual discussion. The same goes for your comment since what was noted was not just "This is what this priest says"...

Talking on 'historical inaccuracies' is not the same as showing them to be present - and that's a bottom line reality since simply saying where you disagree with a priest is pointless. It is also pointless responding as if others are about "this is what this priest says" - you already did that and have DONE so a number of times, so there's no need for inconsistency simply because you disagree with a point.

This also goes for whatever books you brought up in saying others needed to consider - if I said "You're guilty of mistaken fidelity to your ideas" rather than dealing with what the book said, it'd be silly. What is of focus is the actual text of history, the Councils themselves and seeing the Bishops/HH have said on the matter...and for priests referencing the text, that is the focus. So there's no need on your part for trying any kind of argumentation that tries to reduce what others say to the ridiculous - as priests and others here are dealing with the actual inaccuracies. Just because you said it doesn't mean you're right - and your logic assumes that someone having more trust for Priests/Bishops means that they don't want to be concerned on what's right.

Trying to assume only you are concerned for inaccuracies is part of where the issue lies since it was a matter of jumping INTO a discussion assuming others did not study - or that only you were concerned for things. Sorry - but that doesn't lime up and people not agreeing with your stance are not about agreeing with all things a priest says, as that'd be be caricature. If you're loyal to your stance, then it's rather inconsistent speaking on others as if they're ONLY concerned for the stances of priests or are somehow loyal to them in all things.

So again, please don't just jump further nto a discussion giving a statement "They're all wrong!!" and then leaving out several sources that disagree with you.

It's not as though anything has invalidated Fr. Anthony's overall point (which, again, I agree with: we ought to, and do, sincerely desire unity with the EO, and we ought to, and do, praise God for our improved relations, and pray that they continue in that direction in the future),

To be clear, We already have improved relations and agreement and that is something Fr. Anthony and many others have pointed out before on multiple points....and Fr. Anthony's overall point was not about simply desiring unity. His point was on how many times there was a lot of disagreement and misunderstanding that was not necessary. Period. As said before,

There really is MORE unity in the Church than many are willing to admit.... it is the case historically that the
Greek Orthodox
church is in full communion with the Oriental Orthodox church:​

Since the Holy Synods of both the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa have already accepted the outcome of the official dialogue on Christology between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, including the two official agreements: the first on Christology signed in June 1989 in Egypt and the second also on Christology and on the lifting of anathemas and restoration of full communion signed in Geneva 1990, in which it is stated that "In the light of our agreed statement on Christology..., we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of Apostolic tradition". It was agreed to have mutual recognition of the sacrament of Baptism, based on what St Paul wrote, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:5)http://www.orthodoxunity.org/sta...​

• Two Families of Orthodox | Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Los Angelas ...
• Recent Efforts For Unity Between The Two Families Of The Orthodox Church

• Pastoral Agreement between the Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria: Official Statements (https://orthodoxjointcommission.fil...reek-orthodox-patriarchates-of-alexandria.pdf )

Moreover, for practice, we already have it where Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, congratulated His Holiness Patriarch Mor Ignatius Aphrem II on his election to the throne of Primate of the Syriac Orthodox Church. It was not a competition or a matter of saying "We cannot celebrate him, as he is OO!!" ...for in his words:

Your Holiness,

I wholeheartedly congratulate you on the election to the throne of Primate of the ancient Syriac Orthodox Church. The Russian Orthodox Church values good relations with the Syriac Church and thinks highly of the heritage of your demised predecessor – Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas. He was always committed to the active inter-Christian dialogue and was a supporter of closer interaction between the Orthodox and the Oriental Churches.

Our Church is praying for the re-establishment of a longed-for peace in the Syrian land, sanctified by the feet of holy prophets and apostles. I sincerely wish you to be a preacher of truth and reconciliation in your homeland and a wise steerer of the church boat.

Many and good years to you!
With love in Christ,
/+Hilarion/
Metropolitan of Volokolamsk
Chairman
Department for External Church Relations
Moscow Patriarchate ( Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk sends message of greeting to Primate elect of the Syriac Orthodox Church | The Russian Orthodox Church )

​

What happens in canonical Orthodox has been quite clear when keeping up with the actual discussions, statements and what leadership has done.

There are multiple other examples besides that, dude.

but it would definitely be stronger without claiming that we are making things up when we are not, or that the Muslims were our liberators when there is no evidence of any OO person claiming that until several centuries after the fact.

Nothing said in that text says WHY he was prevented - and that's part of where the issue comes from when claiming there was some kind of conspiracy to keep him from coming. All that was said was that he was prevented. The end. There was nothing further saying he was being set up or abused in his name via slander or the guards not being loyal for him - and he supported things in the end, so one would have to read into everything that happens. We do this with historical documents all the time (and my field is in that arena) - you cannot take a statement as YOU understand it today without actually seeing what it would have meant to the people in that era. This is why it was not enough to claim St. Dioscorus was set up, as you can't read into things "His guards weren't loyal to him and that's why they prevented him!!" when that's inferred rather than shown consistently from all of his letters and discourses on the issue. At the end of the day, he agreed.

or that the Muslims were our liberators when there is no evidence of any OO person claiming that until several centuries after the fact.

Again, respectfully, making an assertion based on prior assessments does not mean that a fact has been established. No one saying "Muslims liberated the OO" is saying there was somehow a time of celebration in all things pertaining to freedom. There were simply aspects where exchange happened even as others recognized the negative that came with allowing for others to be present after they dealt with other systems. ...and never was Islam seen as superior to Christianity by the OO. The earliest mentions of the Arab conquests were by Syriac Christians working at several levels of administration/education and wrote the histories of Muslims countries in Arabic.

We cannot ignore how Byzantine Christian authorities in Constantinople persecuted Egyptians belonging to the Coptic Orthodox Church - one of the reasons there did not seem to be solidarity when Muslim Arabs went beyond Arabia into the Byzantine imperial territories of the Levant and North Africa and into the Persian (Sassanian) imperial territories of Iran/Iraq. There's no record of the Coptic Christians doing anything other than greeting the invaders rather than giving a show of resistance. At the end of the day, there is something to be said on how Islamic rule aided Christians in not having pressure with Byzantine conformity. There's more than enough merit in understanding the rapid Arab conquest of Egypt as a result (at least in part) of Coptic antipathy toward Byzantium because of the imperial religious policies that constantly treated Coptic Churches as herectical - in addition to heavy taxes imposed by Constantinople.

• History of the Coptic Orthodox People and the Church of Egypt
  By Robert Morgan

As said before, There was actually an excellent book on the issue entitled The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam by Sidney H. Griffith

• • The Cross Under the
  • Crescent - Article | First Things
  • The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque - Hamline Law
  • Review: Sidney Griffith, the Church in the Shadow of the Mosque
  • The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims

​

Sidney H. Griffith is one of the leading scholars in the field when it comes to the world of Syriac Christology and the ways it was seen within the Islamic world.

• Christianity in Edessa and the Syriac-Speaking World: Mani, Bar Daysan and Ephraem; The Struggle for Allegiance on the Aramean Frontier

And Historically, there has been significant scholarship pointing out the issue on how Islam and the Church had several phases. The early violence in the Republic of Rome was replicated in the Eastern Roman Empire since political violence appeared in the Byzantine Empire from 400 CE to 600 CE. As it concerns the Crusades, it's often forgotten that the wars started between the Byzantine Empire and the Islamic armies that were trying to conquer territories. Other Christian groups such as the Ghassanids and the Nestorian Lakhmids rallied to join the Muslims who were expanding since they were greatly mistreated under the Byzantine rule - even as it concerns violence done to them as others claimed Christ and harmed those who did not agree with their own idea of who Christ was.

The Nestorians, the Maronites, the Melkites, Chaldeans, Jacobites, Anchorites, Arians, Ebionites, Paulicians, Assyriani and a host of other churches sprung up or were influenced by the hermits living in the deserts and mountains of Syria, all seeking and trying to explain the mystery of God, his love for humanity and his compassion for the salvation of our souls though the personage, whether dual or monophysite in nature, of Jesus the Christ.

So many of these individual churches evolved that the Byzantines, seeking religious unity for the purpose of an empirical dominance based in Constantinople, began to persecute these churches, primarily because of the monophysite/diophysite controversy (referring to the single or dual natures of Christ) as well as their refusal to accept the final verdicts of the council of Nicaea. One can visit the caves in central Turkey, in Cappadocia, to see where these Christians would have had to hide from marauding Byzantine raiding parties who would put to death any and all heretics who were unlucky enough to be caught. The Muslim Arab armies invaded the region at the request of the local Christians who formed a coalition called the Ghassanids. Oppressed under Byzantine tyranny, the Christians of Syria sought the protection of the Arab Muslims, fellow Semites who were far more lenient and tolerant than their fellow Christian Greek rulers of the eastern Roman empire.

References on the issue are the following:

• -"Damascus after the Muslim Conquest: Text and Image in Early Islam By Nancy Khalek
• Perpetua of Carthage: Portrait of a Third-Century Martyr
  By William Farina
• The Medieval World: An Illustrated Atlas
  By John M. Thompson

We also can see what occurred with Mar Gabriel (d.667), the abbot of the monastery at Qartmin, which is located in the mountains of the Tur abdin in South-east Turkey. As Qartmin was a stronghold for those rejecting Byzantine Orthodox Christianity, Mar Gabriel saw Muslim rule as an opportunity.

More can be found in the biographical work Life of Gabriel of Qartmin (Life of Gabriel of Qartmin, ed. Andrew Palmer : Andrew Palmer : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive ) / (Monk and Mason on the Tigris Frontier ).

Specifically, as his biographer said, "Mar Gabriel preferred the advent of the Arabs to the oppression of the Byzantines, so he gave assistance and helped them." It is through the life of others like Mar Gabriel in which can see how Syrian Orthodox Christians aided Muslim conquests rather than simply being helpless looking on. As a point of fact, we can see how it under Muslim rule from the 7th century onward, Syriac Christians wrote the most extensive descriptions extant of early Islam...a vast body of texts indicating a very complicated and ever-evolving range of religious /cultural exchanges that took place from the 7th to the 9th century. Dr. Sebastian Brock has also noted the same reality, as he is the leading scholar in the world on Syriac Christology - and this was pointed out in his work entitled "Studies in Syriac Christianit(Bookos.org) - Scribd"
[Sebastian P. Brock] Studies in Syriac Christianit(Bookos.org) )

• An Introduction to Syriac S Sebastian Brock

Sebastian P. Brock, 'Syriac Views of Emergent Islam',
Scholars have been verifying this for some time - and for reference on the actual works on the issue.

• Monk and Mason on the Tigris Frontier: The Early History of Tur `Abdin (1990)

• When Christians First Met Muslims: A Sourcebook of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam Paperback ( 2015 )
  by Michæl Philip Penn

• Envisioning Islam: Syriac Christians and the Early Muslim World (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion) Hardcover – June 24, 2015 by Michael Philip Penn

​

As said for a brief excerpt from one review:

Recent scholarship on the use of Syriac sources for understanding Islam’s relationship with Christianity have tended to focus on boundary making via polemics and the uniqueness of each tradition (see, e.g., Sidney Griffith’s work, although he is generally concerned with Arabic-speaking Christianity). By contrast, Penn has reinforced his argument with the recent publication of a valuable primary source companion volume: When Christians First Met Muslims: A Sourcebook of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam (2015). What makes Envisioning Islam an important contribution to the discussion of early Muslim-Christian relations is Penn’s nuanced reading of Syriac sources, especially their interpretation of the Islamic conquest and the view of Islam as a heretical from of Christianity.

For instance, one enduring historical myth is the notion that Eastern Christians welcomed the Arab conquest. Everything from scholarly articles to textbooks to popular literature and websites all reproduce this fable. Yet the Account of 637, the Chronicle ad 640, and the Khuzistan Chronicle run contrary to this legend. Instead, Syriac Christians understood the conquest in political terms or as God chastising them for their sins. They did not anticipate their conquerors to remain. Nor did they speak about Islam as a distinctive religion and its motivation for the conquest. Later reactions in the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Ephrem and the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodiusadded apocalyptic elements to the historical event, asking why God would allow such a thing to happen to the Christian community. John bar Penkaye’s Book of Main Pointsused biblical models to interpret the conquest. Only in the ninth century did the historical account change, whereby the conquest was used by Christians to justify legal precedents for guaranteeing Christian life and property. Most importantly, Dionysius of Tel Mahre’s writings about the conquests incorporated into the Chronicle of 1234 and Michael the Syrian’s Chronicle, were perpetuated by historians: “The result has been a widespread myth that, during the conquests, Syriac Christians conspired with Muslims against the Byzantines and welcomed the Arabs with open arms. The first two hundred years of Syriac conquest accounts easily disprove this contention.” Thus Syriac writings on the conquests initially described the terror of events, then interpreted why they happened, and finally began to explain what Christians should do because of them.​

With that said, again, I will respectfully disagree with you on points if you cannot engage the historical background of things. Till you can address what was already noted, it's not an issue ignoring, as the thread is not here for any kind of extreme argumentation that does not represent what others in the Church have said...be it Fr. Anthony or multiple other priests.

 

[dzheremi]

Gxg2,

This should hopefully be obvious enough to you and anyone else reading this thread, but as I replied to your original post at 4:23 pm, and you edited your post at 6:19 pm, I could not very well have addressed in that reply a huge mess of text that did not even exist in the post I was replying to at the time. Your original post contained none of the copious links, photos, etc. that it now contains, as you well know, and my original reply was well within the bounds of the non-argument present in your pre-edited version of the post. So it is extremely dishonest of you to write things like "At several points you already avoided historical sources and I addressed each/every historical source you tried to bring up - yet I have not seen one addressing on your part for what was given." This is not an accurate reflection of the timeline that would have been involved in the conversation I am now very much not interested in having with you, as you have shown yourself by arguing in the manner that you have that you have no interest whatsoever in actually discussing matters, but are as usual pushing an agenda regarding the OO Church. I am not interested in that.

For the sake of clarifying my earlier position, I will say that regarding the mass of text and links you have now dumped on the thread in an effort show me to be the dishonest one, since you think I am running from something, you needn't take my word for it. Here is what aforementioned Suermann has to say in his chapter of Grypeou et al., entitled "Copts and the Islam of the Seventh Century":

For a long time, the statement handed down by Michael the Syrian was accepted: that the Syrian miaphysites, who had been persecuted by the imperial Byzantine church, regarded the Islamic conquest as a liberation from the Byzantine yoke. Today we know that the miaphysites did not receive the Arabs as liberators at the beginning of Islamic rule [....] The situation is quite similar for the conquest of Egypt. The conviction that the Egyptian miaphysites received the Muslims as liberators from the Byzatine yoke was still widespread in the 1980s; C. Detlef G. Muller holds that opinion in his work published in 1981. But there were already others who rejected that position, e.g., F. Winkelmann already in 1979.

In 1985, Muller published his article on the position and attitude of the Coptic patriarchs vis-a-vis the Islamic authorities and Islam, which he had already presented at the Second International Congress of Coptic Studies in Rome in 1980. The basis of this analysis was the History of the Patriarchs. In his analysis he could not provide evidence that the Copts received the Muslims as liberators. He showed that the relationship between the patriarchs and the Islamic authorities was sometimes friendly, but sometimes problematic. (2006:96-97; italics at source)​

This matches literally every source I have ever consulted from within the COC (and a growing number outside of it, as the outdated view popularized in past eras is less frequently repeated without challenge), which at best paint a mixed picture of Muslim-Coptic relations in Egypt after the conquest. No one claims that it was all bad, but also none support the claim that the Copts saw the Muslims as 'liberators' from anything. Even Al-Maqrizi, who as a Muslim could conceivably have reason for putting the conquests in the best light, basically reports the facts with no mention of liberation: the Copts had been exiled from their sees, and the Muslims came and restored them after defeating the Byzantines. And Coptic help did come to the Muslims in that fight in the form of Coptic ship navigators/naval men heading the naval attack against the Byzantines, but that too must be contextualized within the new context of the rising Muslim power, which demanded such help from people who after all really had no reason not to give it to them (as the Muslims had lightened their burdens in some respects during their early rule, relative to the earlier Byzantines; granted, it did not stay this way), and every reason to want to see the Byzantines gone after several centuries of oppression.

Tarek M. Muhammad puts it very plainly:

Besides the jizyah, the Egyptians were again asked to offer forced labor services (αγγαρια) for the construction and repairing of bridges, canals, ships, and other public works; and an additional obligation was now their participation in the κουρσα, naval expeditions against the Byzantines. These civilian and military burdens on the Egyptians under the Arab rule forced them to flee from their lands, villages, monasteries, and cities. ("The Role of the Copts in the Islamic Navigation in the 7th and 8th Centuries: The Papyrological Evidence", in Journal of Coptic Studies 10 (2008) 1-32; Peeters)

Still sound like 'liberators' to you? It shouldn't, since they weren't.

Based on what study I have done on the Syriac response as recorded in the works of Griffith, Hoyland, Moosa, and others, I would not be surprised to find Syriac sources which seem to favor the Muslims over the Byzantines to be similar, in terms of ideology and a kind of practical recognition of the reality on the ground: driven by a recognition that the new (Muslim) regime may be beneficial in getting rid of the old (Byzantine) regime -- which is at least a known (and hated) quantity to a greater degree than that of the Muslims -- the Syriac writers did not shy away from preferring the Muslims or others to the Byzantines, when there was reason to. For example, the same Syriac Orthodox Patriarch HH Michael the Syrian who is responsible for this "Muslims as liberators" narrative several centuries after the fact writes in his chronicle of the different communities of Jerusalem in his time that the Franks were accepting of all as Christians, despite their differing confessions and languages, and that the Turks, even though they did not understand Christianity, nevertheless did not force their confession on others, unlike the "heretic Byzantines". Would this likewise mean that the Syriacs saw or see the Franks or the Turks as 'liberators'? That would be hard to substantiate, to say the least. Again, at best everything is mixed, with some better times and some worse times. Saying or writing that it would be better for this group to win or rule over another group is not calling them liberators. The EO likewise have said that the Turkish yoke is preferred to the Papal tiara. Does this mean that the EO view the Turks as 'liberators' from the prospect of Latin domination? I am willing to bet that they would tell you that things are not that simple, and a polemical point meant to underscore the distatefulness of the idea of Latin domination is not meant to exalt the Turks in any fashion whatsoever.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Gxg2,

This should hopefully be obvious enough to you and anyone else reading this thread, but as I replied to your original post at 4:23 pm, and you edited your post at 6:19 pm, I could not very well have addressed in that reply a huge mess of text that did not even exist in the post .....

..it is extremely dishonest of you to write things like "At several points you already avoided historical sources and I addressed each/every historical source you tried to bring up - yet I have not seen one addressing on your part for what was given." This is not an accurate reflection of the timeline that would have been involved in the conversation I am now very much not interested in having with you,
.

D,

One, talking disparaging manner on a post as a "huge mess of text" gives me a bit of a chuckle when your first post was very much a mess of text (Fr. Antony Paul: Understanding the Differences & Intersections in Coptic Orthodox and Chalcedonian ). I don't take issue with it - but both in content/spacing, it took time to get through. I didn't care to comment on it since my focus is responding to what you actually said - and not on trying to distract based on appearance as if I can't read.

Now for some Basic facts: My first post to you in you reacting (rather than responding) to the video can be seen as being done Yesterday at 6:01 PM - and it was edited at Yesterday at 8:21 PM since I added the Book Reference.

Later, as I saw you made another post, I made a response Yesterday at 8:21 PM. Thus, it is direct falsehood claiming I edited anything at 6:19 at all. As I make a post and sometimes post it before going back into it to finish it up, I do not see EVERY single post you make after it. Thus, it is pointless even bringing up editing on the issue. But it is also pointless since the bottom line is that in a discussion you're free at ANY TIME to respond to whatever someone writes.

If I go back over a discussion/see where you added a point to something you wanted to address further, I don't complain. I read (as I have always done) and go back to address it - because I do not assume the first moment you post something that the post has ALL of what you wanted to say....OR what you felt best. The number of times something was restated because the first try didn't seem the best - or something else was added in for reference....that's not new, dude.

As I have a life and take time to write out response before taking care of other things, I don't always do editing all at once BEFORE I post - and as I just got in the house a couple of hours ago from an event to work again, people update. No one is stopping you either - and as a point of fact, please do not try to spin anything since several things were already there earlier which you did not address. My adding a book reference is not the same as adding other things into it.

People do not make excuses for why they either (1) RUSH to give a response before reading fully or (2) Claim they cannot address something when others edit (as I had already addressed several points immediately after I posted on your first post BEFORE your responded again). Seriously, there's zero room to be personal if trying to discuss - and as it is, I'm going to have to break up your post since it was jumbled together at several points (due to several glaring points lacking evidence and it being a massive amount of text). Get over it please and stay objective rather than being personal since what matters is the discussion and the video presentation.

Period.

As it it, I don't need to remind you (Or anyone else reading) of several points you are complaining on where you already have played that out -including making a post and adding on to something later. Reasonable posters, if they want to address what you said, simply went back/edited their postings to match - and as that has happened before, if necessary, we can do that by going over your edit history. It'd be a bit tedious since it is obvious but you made a couple of claims on the issue, it seems necessary to dismiss that tired-and-failed attempt at distraction.

. Your original post contained none of the copious links, photos, etc. that it now contains, as you well know, and my original reply was well within the bounds of the non-argument present in your pre-edited version of the post.

As said before, ranting does not establish an argument.

And for a newsflash, trying to disparage a form for reference isn't the same as dealing with the argument - if your logic/form of argumentation is to focus on link or Book photo that takes you to it as an issue, it's petty. The issue is citation - and you already gave non-argument so it'd be good to address that rather than bringing up a very obvious rabbit trail that has little to do with discussion.

You neither dealt with the Tome of Leo, Cyril of Alexandria, the Robber's Synod, Mar Gabriel or several other things - and of course, speaking on "links, photos" (Reductio ad absurdum ) is the best you can offer. Please stop with the pretense of wanting to deal with history when the Bishops, HH Pope Tawadros and several others have been referenced in addition to Historical text at several points (of which reference links were given).

Excusing does nothing - so from here on out, I'm going to skip past anything that rants rather than addressing the facts since poisoning the well never does anything any good.

as you have shown yourself by arguing in the manner that you have that you have no interest whatsoever in actually discussing matters

Pause. Agreeing with YOU and discussing FACTS are 2 different things entirely. That you assume otherwise shows a level of not understanding the discussion - and you already have tried to argue points that have little to do with what the CHURCH has said. When the priests or Bishops are brought up, you already noted you didn't want to reference them - so why would I have any interest WHATSOEVER if it's really about discussing whatever you prefer to be OO instead of basis in fact or our leaders?

Other OO have said the exact same thing I have for a decade before - and I've discussed with them. So catch up with what has already been stated here.

That goes nowhere fast since that can be a matter of making it up as folks go along.

you have no interest whatsoever in actually discussing matters, but are as usual pushing an agenda regarding the OO Church. I am not interested in th

Again, it is an illogical point on your part assuming that disagreeing with YOU and your own views means disagreeing with OO.

What you have done (and to be frank, have been doing for sometime with anyone disagreeing with you, OO or EO) is reacting to anyone not agreeing with whatever you push forth as OO - and that's not necessary, especially when you disagreed with others before. If you cannot substantiate your point, don't complain on others not accepting it since it is you pushing an agenda at that point on what you want OO Church to be.

It is rather humorous to even see you attempt to speak about others "pushing an agenda concerning the OO Church" when you did not deal with what the OO Church has said - and already showed a willingness to dismiss it if you didn't like it. We know what the OO Church says and I've shared on that before just as Fr. Anthony and many others who have been discussed - my focus is the Church and dealing with the history.

Apparently, citing/referencing what is noted in the Church is somehow 'pushing an agenda' - and that is really an argument via emotional appeal.

I do not care for that and I never have. So again, please get over it.

For the sake of clarifying my earlier position, I will say that regarding the mass of text and links

you have now dumped on the thread in an effort show me to be the dishonest one

Again.....you're ranting and trying to be personal on it. It's not worth engaging you on, dude - and Again, as you just gave MASSIVE text for me to address, one can ask you actually do likewise as I have done: either deal with the argument or quit wasting people's time since you're inconsistent and very much dishonest on the intellectual front currently. It is what it is.

, since you think I am running from something, you needn't take my word for it. Here is what aforementioned Suermann has to say in his chapter of Grypeou et al., entitled "Copts and the Islam of the Seventh Century":

Beyond the fact that none of that has anything to do with what was said by the Syriac Church, NONE of that has anything to do with what the Bishops have said, the Priests, the Church Fathers and so forth. You just quoted (ironically) a MASSIVE quote after trying to do an red herring about quotes being massive - so again, beyond you being inconsistent on the thing you're speaking of, you have gone way past the actual video presentation.

Again, you need to actually deal with scholarship as a WHOLE - because your one quote does not deal with what multiple others who lead in the field have said. If you were serious on scholarship.

As said before, There was actually an excellent book on the issue entitled The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam by Sidney H. Griffith

• • The Cross Under the
  • Crescent - Article | First Things
  • The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque - Hamline Law
  • Review: Sidney Griffith, the Church in the Shadow of the Mosque
  • The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims

​

Sidney H. Griffith is one of the leading scholars in the field when it comes to the world of Syriac Christology and the ways it was seen within the Islamic world.

• Christianity in Edessa and the Syriac-Speaking World: Mani, Bar Daysan and Ephraem; The Struggle for Allegiance on the Aramean Frontier

And Historically, there has been significant scholarship pointing out the issue on how Islam and the Church had several phases. The early violence in the Republic of Rome was replicated in the Eastern Roman Empire since political violence appeared in the Byzantine Empire from 400 CE to 600 CE. As it concerns the Crusades, it's often forgotten that the wars started between the Byzantine Empire and the Islamic armies that were trying to conquer territories. Other Christian groups such as the Ghassanids and the Nestorian Lakhmids rallied to join the Muslims who were expanding since they were greatly mistreated under the Byzantine rule - even as it concerns violence done to them as others claimed Christ and harmed those who did not agree with their own idea of who Christ was.

The Nestorians, the Maronites, the Melkites, Chaldeans, Jacobites, Anchorites, Arians, Ebionites, Paulicians, Assyriani and a host of other churches sprung up or were influenced by the hermits living in the deserts and mountains of Syria, all seeking and trying to explain the mystery of God, his love for humanity and his compassion for the salvation of our souls though the personage, whether dual or monophysite in nature, of Jesus the Christ.

So many of these individual churches evolved that the Byzantines, seeking religious unity for the purpose of an empirical dominance based in Constantinople, began to persecute these churches, primarily because of the monophysite/diophysite controversy (referring to the single or dual natures of Christ) as well as their refusal to accept the final verdicts of the council of Nicaea. One can visit the caves in central Turkey, in Cappadocia, to see where these Christians would have had to hide from marauding Byzantine raiding parties who would put to death any and all heretics who were unlucky enough to be caught. The Muslim Arab armies invaded the region at the request of the local Christians who formed a coalition called the Ghassanids. Oppressed under Byzantine tyranny, the Christians of Syria sought the protection of the Arab Muslims, fellow Semites who were far more lenient and tolerant than their fellow Christian Greek rulers of the eastern Roman empire.

References on the issue are the following:

• -"Damascus after the Muslim Conquest: Text and Image in Early Islam By Nancy Khalek
• Perpetua of Carthage: Portrait of a Third-Century Martyr
  By William Farina
• The Medieval World: An Illustrated Atlas
  By John M. Thompson

We also can see what occurred with Mar Gabriel (d.667), the abbot of the monastery at Qartmin, which is located in the mountains of the Tur abdin in South-east Turkey. As Qartmin was a stronghold for those rejecting Byzantine Orthodox Christianity, Mar Gabriel saw Muslim rule as an opportunity.

More can be found in the biographical work Life of Gabriel of Qartmin (Life of Gabriel of Qartmin, ed. Andrew Palmer : Andrew Palmer : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive ) / (Monk and Mason on the Tigris Frontier ).

Specifically, as his biographer said, "Mar Gabriel preferred the advent of the Arabs to the oppression of the Byzantines, so he gave assistance and helped them." It is through the life of others like Mar Gabriel in which can see how Syrian Orthodox Christians aided Muslim conquests rather than simply being helpless looking on. As a point of fact, we can see how it under Muslim rule from the 7th century onward, Syriac Christians wrote the most extensive descriptions extant of early Islam...a vast body of texts indicating a very complicated and ever-evolving range of religious /cultural exchanges that took place from the 7th to the 9th century. Dr. Sebastian Brock has also noted the same reality, as he is the leading scholar in the world on Syriac Christology - and this was pointed out in his work entitled "Studies in Syriac Christianit(Bookos.org) - Scribd"
[Sebastian P. Brock] Studies in Syriac Christianit(Bookos.org) )

• An Introduction to Syriac S Sebastian Brock

Sebastian P. Brock, 'Syriac Views of Emergent Islam',
Scholars have been verifying this for some time - and for reference on the actual works on the issue.

• Monk and Mason on the Tigris Frontier: The Early History of Tur `Abdin (1990)

• When Christians First Met Muslims: A Sourcebook of the Earliest Syriac Writings on Islam Paperback ( 2015 )
  by Michæl Philip Penn

• Envisioning Islam: Syriac Christians and the Early Muslim World (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion) Hardcover – June 24, 2015 by Michael Philip Penn

​

You got a couple more tries to actually deal with the OP instead of the rabbit trails you went into - and that starts with the Robber Synod (which Pope Dioscorus was over), his support of Eutyches and several other things which you cannot deal with in-depth or brief. I do not expect you to since you've been dealing with it thus far as many Converts to the Coptic Orthodoxy have rather than how the Cradle Orthodox have.

This matches literally every source I have ever consulted from within the COC (and a growing number outside of it, as the outdated view popularized in past eras is less frequently repeated without challenge)

Again, nothing says here actually deals with scholarship. From Sidney to Sebastian Brock (who is THE leading scholar in the field of Syriac Christianity) and Mar Gabriel who welcomed in Turkey in the 6th century. This is why it really doesn't do anything speaking about what is or isn't 'outdated' when you didn't cite anything from others in that specific era in the myriad of thoughts.

, which at best paint a mixed picture of Muslim-Coptic relations in Egypt after the conquest. No one claims that it was all bad, but also none support the claim that the Copts saw the Muslims as 'liberators' from anything. Even Al-Maqrizi, who as a Muslim could conceivably have reason for putting the conquests in the best light, basically reports the facts with no mention of liberation: the Copts had been exiled from their sees, and the Muslims came and restored them after defeating the Byzantines. And Coptic help did come to the Muslims in that fight in the form of Coptic ship navigators/naval men heading the naval attack against the Byzantines, but that too must be contextualized within the new context of the rising Muslim power, which demanded such help from people who after all really had no reason not to give it to them (as the Muslims had lightened their burdens in some respects during their early rule, relative to the earlier Byzantines; granted, it did not stay this way), and every reason to want to see the Byzantines gone after several centuries of oppression.

You again ignore the Popes, such as Pope Benjamin and others, who all noted appreciation for the shift AND used language of liberation.

And when trying to go past that point, you ignore what I have said about mixed response because (in your mind) it seems only valid when you say it - that comes off like loving to hear oneself speak, to be humorous.

Copts coming to give aid and help is NOT a matter of all being forced to do so - and this ignores the history of Copts who volunteered on the issue due to not liking Byzantine rule.

And I already noted before you responded that responses from Copts were that things weren't all bad nor were they all good. Why that is not acknowledged I do not know - but If someone says "I love driving cars since it's therapeutic" and then you say "That's not accurate - driving cars helps people to process and get to their destinations safe"....then this is what we call equivocation. You're choosing to switch definitions for something when they are really the same...and because someone says it differently, it is avoided. Likewise, when someone (as myself) already notes that Muslims had a myriad of perceptions from Christians, it doesn't make sense fighting tooth and nail to try saying the exact same thing - and then saying someone didn't say that. We already know the Muslims

Again, your focus is centered primarily on splitting hairs since it was already noted that liberation and help is a very specific context when it comes to the Copts. And I already said that before in regards to the Copts helping but that help being limited AND the Copts not liking what occurred with the Byzantines. As you are trying to speak as if no one else but you was aware of the work you're citing, it'd behoove you to cease - people already know.

Tarek M. Muhammad puts it very plainly:

Besides the jizyah, the Egyptians were again asked to offer forced labor services (αγγαρια) for the construction and repairing of bridges, canals, ships, and other public works; and an additional obligation was now their participation in the κουρσα, naval expeditions against the Byzantines. These civilian and military burdens on the Egyptians under the Arab rule forced them to flee from their lands, villages, monasteries, and cities. ("The Role of the Copts in the Islamic Navigation in the 7th and 8th Centuries: The Papyrological Evidence", in Journal of Coptic Studies 10 (2008) 1-32; Peeters)

We already know that - and as said before, none of that has ANYTHING to do with showing there was no liberation in any fashion noted by the Copts when it came to Byzantine influence. For it also ignores what hppened with the substantial amount of Egyptians who STAYED - and who rebuilt Monasteries as well.

This is something that has already been discussed before. And to be clear, Anyone studying the background of Coptic Christians knows that they need to study Pope Benjamin since he was considered among the greatest patriarchs of the Coptic National Church. Although he was exiled at one point (self-imposed ) to survive the Byzantine rule that followed the Persian Sassanid invasion, he guided his people. He led them through the Persian invasion of Egypt from 619-629 and then through the Arab invasion wars when Pope Benjamin was given permission to come back to Alexandria.

There are several works on the PRIMARY sources on the issue, such as "The Early Coptic Papacy The Egyptian Church and Its Leadership in Late Antiquity: The Popes of Egypt, Volume 1" by Stephen J. Davis and The Coptic Papacy in Islamic Egypt: The Popes of Egypt, Volume 2 - by Mark Swanson.

​

For more on what the Patriarchs said, one scholar noted it best here:

The section of the History of the Patriarchs dedicated to the period from the Arab conquest to the death of Patriarch Simon in AD 700 is translated from a Coptic source written by one George (Jirjah in Arabic) the Archdeadon. We are fortunate in this; George informs us that he was the spiritual son of Patriarch John III AND a scribe to Patriarch Simon. He is therefore a contemporary, and sometimes an eyewitness of many of the events he describes. George's account does actually begin with the Arab conquest of Egypt, but rather many years earlier, in the aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon in the second half of the fifth century AD. He tells the story of patriarchs who steadfastly confess "the orthodox faith" before rulers, bear persecution patiently, and tend their orthodox flock even from exile. They are confronted with heretics on all sides, but through gentle persuasion are able to win many back. In Patriarch Benjamin (#38, 623-662), George has considerable material for elaborating all these themes. ........The Arab Conquest of the Eastern Byzantine Provinces and the Sassanid Persian Empire had taken place with remarkable rapidity: the first major invasion of Byzantine territory took place in 633, and by 648 the ancient Christian heartland of Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Iraq was in Arab lands.....the Copts had a complex mix of attitudes toward the Arab conquerors; by the time of Patriarch Simon (#42, 692-700), the coming of the Muslims was being absorbed into anonymous End-Time scenarios.

At first, however, at least SOME members of the anti-Chalcedonian community saw their regained autonomy as a liberation. One early source reports Benjamin as offering up the following prayer:

"I give you thanks, my savior Jesus Christ, that you have made me worthy once again to see the liberty {parrhesia} of the Orthodox faith, the flourishing of the holy churches, and the destruction and elimination of the godless herectics.". ​

The Patriarchs are not shown as ever universally saying at ANY point they did not see many forms of liberation on the issue. We already see Pope Benjamin seeing the situation with Muslim rule as a time of liberation and no amount of protest will ever change that basic fact. Mark Swanson did an excellent job referencing the primary source material on the issue, including noting how The History of the Patriarchs recognized the overthrow of the Umayyads by the ‘Abbasids in 750 as God’s bidding, to take “vengeance upon them"...

And for more verification on the issue on Coptic history, one can investigate Coptic Civilization: Two Thousand Years of Christianity in Egypt
edited by Gawdat Gabra...from The American University in Cairo Press.

For another A basic summary:

Islam came to Africa from the Arabs of Syria and Arabia. The invading Arab forces invaded Egypt against Byzantine rule. The Byzantine Church had declared the native Coptic Egyptians heretical and sought to replace it with their own imperial church. The Byzantine rulers sought to exploit the land and the people of Egypt for their own wealth and profit. Thus when ‘Amr ibn al-‘As invaded Egypt, whose population at the time was around 15 million, with a band of no more than 12,000 men he was able to have success because the vast majority of native Egyptians welcomed him in his attack of the hated Byzantines.

Amr had success against the Byzantines and soon made an alliance with the Coptic Patriarch against the Byzantines. Amr would drive out the Byzantines, and the Egyptians would pay an annual tax of 2 dinars per adult male and a tax against the produce of the land to the Arabs. The Arabs agreed to not interfere with the religion, church, property or land of the native Egyptians.

Soon the Arab administration was drawing 12 million dinars a year, moved the capital of the fiefdom to Cairo and away from Alexandria and its proximity to the Byzantine navy. The Arabs contented themselves with their cash flows and didn't seek to increase revenue further in order not to create unrest among the Coptic peoples.

As Egypt continued to be profitable more and more Arabs migrated to the country. Due to the Arabs increasing the amount of irrigated land, Egypt was able to accommodate the influx of Arabs well, and did not seek to dispossess the Copts from their land. They also didn't actively seek to convert the Coptics as this would decrease their revenue from taxes. But, as Egyptians became closer related to the Arabs, as wives, servants, employees, they began to adopt their masters' religion. By 750AD there would be only an estimated five million Coptic Christians. The majority of the population had become Malawi, assimilated Muslims....

Sources
1- A History of Africa, by Fage and Tordoff, pg 143-157.

2- The Encyclopedia of Islam,by Ahmed and Syed, pg 39-43

3- The Encyclopedia of Islam,by Ahmed and Syed, pg 39-43

4- A History of the Maghreb in the Islamic Period, by Abun-Nasr, pg 27-75

5- The Muslim Conquest and Settlement of Spain and North Africa, by Taha, pg 56-83.

6- A History of Africa, by Fage and Tordoff, pg 143-157.

7- A History of the Maghreb in the Islamic Period, by Abun-Nasr, pg 27-75​

All of this goes back to scholarship noting directly the MYRIAD of thoughts Coptic Christians had on the issue when the invasion began. As said best by another scholar (for brief excerpt) in
The Development of the Coptic Perceptions of the Muslim Conquest .
:

Many of the Christian writings of the seventh century such as the works of Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (d. ca. 639 CE); and Sebeos, Bishop of the Bagaratunis (d. ca 661 CE), included references to Islam and the Muslim conquests in the Middle East. The attitude and views of those chronicles towards the Muslim conquests varied: Some are against the conquest whereas in other support it, or at least have a neutral stance. The views of the authors of these chronicles, who lived outside the Muslim territories, such as Patriarch Germanos (715-730 CE), varied from those who lived within the Muslim territories, such as the Copts. In other words, the direct interaction with the Muslims played an important role in shaping the views of the Christian writings on Islam. ...The Christian writers of the seventh century reinterpreted earlier apocalyptic scenarios. Christians viewed Arab rule as the time of testing before the “final peace” when “the churches will be renewed, the cities rebuilt and the priests set free from tax.”.....

Ishocyahb III of Adiabene (580-659 CE) was born in Quplānā (in Adiabene, between Kirkuh and Mosul). He studied theology at the theological school of Nisibis then he left school and became a monk in the monastery of BētcAbē. He was elected bishop of Niniveh-Mosul in 628 CE, then a metropolitan of Ebril before 637 CE, and finally he was elected patriarch of the Church of the East in 649 CE. Ishocyahb was an eyewitness to the Muslim conquest of Adiabene region. He was respected by the Muslim leaders in his region and was granted some fiscal concessions for his community. He composed several hagiographic and ascetic writings.[1]

In his letter to Simeon of Rev Ardashir, which was composed after 649 CE, Ishocyahb talks about the good treatment of Christians under the rule of the Muslims.[2] Ishocyahb III says, “As for the Arabs, to whom God has at this time given rule over the world, you know well how they act towards us. Not only do they not oppose Christianity, but they praise our faith, honor the priests and saints of our Lord, and give aid to the Churches and monasteries.”[3]


............
1- John bar Penkaye (writing 687 CE / 67-68 AH)

There is little information about John bar Penkaye. He was a monk of the East Syriac church. His family is from Fenek, a town on the river Tigris in Iraq in north-western Mesopotamia, and a resident of the monastery of John Kamul. He must have been born early in the seventh century, as he recalls the last great Persian monarch, Chosroes II; and he must have died before 693 CE as he shows no knowledge of the patriarch then elected. While he was in the monastery of John Kamul, John wrote Ktābā d-rīš mellē ("Book of the Salient Points") and dedicated it to a person called Sabrisho‘, the abbot of this convent. This work, written in fifteen short books, is considered the most important of his works. It is a summary of the history of the world, which talks about the conditions in the late seventh century within the first century of Islamic rule. He is considered to be a valuable non-Muslim eyewitness to this period.[1]

In his book, John wrote the history of the world from its creation to his present day, which he called the “severe chastisement of today”.[2] He mentioned the Arab conquests in books number fourteen and fifteen of his work. He also saw the Muslim conquest as part of the divine work and his first impression was that God prepared the Muslims to hold Christians in honor. His explanation of the defeat of the Persians by the Muslims was that the children of Hagar were supported by God to bring down the sinful kingdom of the Persians.

John narrates:

We should not think of the advent (of the children of Hagar) as something ordinary, but as due to divine working. Before calling them, (God) had prepared them beforehand to hold Christians in honour, thus they also had a special commandment from God concerning our monastic station, that they should hold it in honour. Now when these people came, at God's command, and took over as it were both kingdoms, not with any war or battle, but in a menial fashion, such as when a brand is rescued out of the fire; not using weapons of war or human means. God put victory into their hands in such a way that the words written concerning them might be fulfilled, namely, 'One man chased a thousand and two men routed ten thousand'! How, otherwise, could naked men, riding without armour or shield, have been able to win, apart from divine aid, God having called them from the ends of the earth so as to destroy, by them, a sinful kingdom, and to bring low, through them. the proud spirit of the Persians.[1]

It seems, from his writings, that John knew about Islam and its teachings as in one part of his book he talked about Muʻāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān (d. 680 CE) and he described how justice flourished under his rule. Then, he said that he ruled according to the traditions of Prophet Muhamed (PBUH), which indicates his previous knowledge of those traditions and teachings.​

John narrates:

Having let their dispute run its course, after much fighting had taken place between them, the Westerners, whom they call the sons of ’Ammāyē, gained the victory, and one of their number, a man called M‘awyā [i.e., Mu‘awiya], became king controlling the two kingdoms, of the Persians and of the Byzantines. Justice flourished in his time, and there was great peace in the regions under his control; he allowed everyone to live as they wanted. For they held, as I have said above, an ordinance, stemming from the man who was their guide (mhaddyānā), concerning the people of the Christians and concerning the monastic station. Also as a result of this man's guidance (mhaddyānūtā) they held to the worship of One God, in accordance with the customs of ancient law. At the beginnings they kept to the traditions (mašlmānūtā) of Mụhammad, who was their instructor (tā’rā), to such an extent that they inflicted the death penalty on anyone who was seen to act brazenly against his laws.​

[1]. S. P. Brock, “North Mesopotamia In The Late Seventh Century Book XV Of John Bar Penkāyē'sRišMillē”, Jerusalem Studies In Arabic And Islam V. 9, (1987): 51-75.

[1]. G. J.Reinink, "East Syrian Historiography In Response To The Rise Of Islam: A Case Of John Bar Penkaye'sKtābā D-RīshMellē" in Redefining Christian Identity: Cultural Interaction In The Middle East Since The Rise Of Islam , eds. J. J. Van Ginkel and H. L. Murre-Van Den Berg, (Peeters Publishers, 2006), 77-89.

[2]. Hoyland, 195.


[1]. Herman G.B. Teule, ''Ishocyahb III of Adiabene'', in Christian-Muslim Relations: A Bibliographical History. Volume 1 (600‒900), ed. D. Thomas and B. Roggema (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 133.

[2]. Ibid., 135.

[3]. Hoyland, 181.



[1]. Ibid., 27.​

And you've yet to deal with the Syriac Christians on the matter. Oh well...

Still sound like 'liberators' to you? It shouldn't, since they weren't.

That again goes to ignore what "liberators" means as a term and knowing the etymology of the word rather than reading a definition into it past the context. Someone saying the Celts were centered on ecological harmony would be in their right mind to take issue with anyone raising an absurd argument claiming "So you think the Celts were simply about peace and love, huh?? Their warlike culture does not sound loving harmony!!!" - for harmony as a word has a context and application to a specific situation. Stretching the word past the context is a caricature. The same goes for the concept of liberation.

And again, this is not new.

As stated elsewhere - from Cairo Journal of Theology 1 (2014):

The Middle East Council of Churches’ publication, Christianity: A History of the Middle East, rightly provides several chapters on the “Rise of Eastern Churches” that review the fifth to the eighth centuries. Mār Sāwīrus Isḥaq Saka states that the seventh and eighth centuries, after the Islamic conquest, were a period of administrative, spiritual, social and intellectual renaissance for the Syriac Church. According to Fr. Samīr Khalīl Samīr, the rise of the Abbasid dynasty gave rise to the participation of Arab Christians in the Arab Renaissance with the likes of Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq and Qusṭā ibn Lūqā, among others. Thus, the common narrative that the coming of Islam overcame Christendom and suppressed the dhimmi may be a contemporary re-reading of history based upon our current experiences rather than actual fact.....Much has been written and discussed about the Islamic Conquest of Egypt. Many views, however, are often expressed within the context of the current tensions of the rise of the salafism. While there is no doubt that the Arab Muslims militarily conquered Egypt, their coming was experienced as no different than any other empire that conquered Egypt over the centuries. In fact, the establishment of Fusṭāṭ as a separate Arab Muslim encampment north of Babylon demonstrates that, from their earliest policy decisions, the Muslims were content with merely occupying and benefiting from the rich resources of the Egyptian Nile river valley, rather than imposing Islamic sharī‘a, a concept that would not begin to take root until after al-Shafi’i in the 9 th century.

Many of the Coptic sources look back on this time as a punishment on the Byzantines for their heresy and oppression of the true Church. The 7 th century Bishop John of Nikou noted, “This expulsion (of the Byzantines) and the victory of the Muslims is due to the wickedness of the emperor Heraclius and his persecution of the orthodox [Copts].” Likewise, the 10th century History of the Patriarchs noted “The Lord abandoned the army of the Romans [Byzantines] as a punishment for their corrupt faith.”17 Scholars have debated whether the Copts supported and aided the Arab Muslims in their conquest over the Byzantines in Egypt because the sources do present a complicated picture. But what is clear is that the deep divide between the Copts and the Byzantines created an atmosphere conducive for the Arab Muslims to easily take control of Egypt. The Copts as non-Chalcedonians lost little sleep over the fact that the Byzantines had been defeated. The most prominent example of the official Coptic view is the well-known story of ‘Amr ibn al-Ās and Patriarch Benjamin. After the Byzantine Patriarch and general Cyrus was defeated and retreated to Constantinople ‘Amr called for the Coptic Patriarch Benjamin, who had been in hiding for over ten years, and invited to take up his papal seat in Alexandria. The story as remembered in the History of the Patriarchs has ‘Amr asking for Benjamin’s blessing on the continued Arab Muslim advance through North Africa.

“Resume the government of all your churches and of your people, and administer their affairs. And if you will pray for me, that I may go to the West and to Pentapolis, and take possession of them, as I have of Egypt, and return to you in safety and speedily, I will do for you all that you shall ask of me.” Then the holy Benjamin prayed for Amr, and pronounced an eloquent discourse, which made Amr and those present with him marvel, and which contained words of exhortation and much profit for those that heard him; and he revealed certain matters to Amr, and departed from his presence honoured and revered.1​

Reference:

John of Nkiu, The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, trans. by R. H. Charles (The Text and Translation Society, Oxford University Press, 1916), CXXI.2 and CXIV.1, CXXI.10, CXIII.2.

B. T. A. Evetts, ed. History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria, II, Peter to Benjamin I (661), in Patrologia Orientalis, 1.4. (Paris: Frimin-Didot, 1904), 496–97.​

Based on what study I have done on the Syriac response as recorded in the works of Griffith, Hoyland, Moosa, and others, I would not be surprised to find Syriac sources which seem to favor the Muslims over the Byzantines to be similar, in terms of ideology and a kind of practical recognition of the reality on the ground: driven by a recognition that the new (Muslim) regime may be beneficial in getting rid of the old (Byzantine) regime -- which is at least a known (and hated) quantity to a greater degree than that of the Muslims -- the Syriac writers did not shy away from preferring the Muslims or others to the Byzantines, when there was reason to. For example

Already said that (which shows you didn't pay attention to the context people spoke in)....

Again, trying to repeat the issue is splitting hairs since the context others had of liberation was in the sense that things were exchanged for freedom in other areas they did not have with Muslim rule. This is no different than speaking about a Freedom Movement in the 60s and then having someone think Civil Rights activism wasn't the focus because they chose to assume the words "freedom" HAD to be used when the focus was people working to gain certain rights they did not have with the previous administration.

And not having Byzantine rule was a liberating dynamic in several respects. It wasn't about praising all things Islam - it was about noting "We got this in exchange for their services so we're thankful - but we have to be prepare for what's next." No different than saying "I don't like the presidency in who got elected but I am glad for this choice compared to another" (when considering Hilary compared to Trump - people saying we were liberated from one problem because of him elected do not have to believe all things coming with him are a matter of freedom elsewhere).

, the same Syriac Orthodox Patriarch HH Michael the Syrian who is responsible for this "Muslims as liberators" narrative several centuries after the fact writes in his chronicle of the different communities of Jerusalem......

We are not talking about Syriac Orthodox Patriarch HH Michael the Syrian since the concept of Liberation on ANY level did not begin with Him. That is the issue of reading past what others said in context of the video presentation by Fr. Anthony. What was stated plainly by Fr. Anthony was that what the Byzantines were doing to the Copts and OOs in general was VERY oppressive and Muslims helped in liberating them from that. That's it....


Focusing on other categories misses the point...

.... the Franks were accepting of all as Christians, despite their differing confessions and languages, and that the Turks, even though they did not understand Christianity, nevertheless did not force their confession on others, unlike the "heretic Byzantines".

Would this likewise mean that the Syriacs saw or see the Franks or the Turks as 'liberators'? That would be hard to substantiate, to say the least.

As a point of fact, the Franks were not accepting of all as Christians AND many coming to them wanting them to do to the Byzantine the same thing that the Byzantines did earlier. It was always a matter of seeing what you got in one group "liberating' when seeing what you didn't have before - and forced conversions were not new.

For example, what comes to my mind is the Arians and what occurred during the Development of the Nicene Creed. The ways that the Arians saw it is indeed intriguing when seeing how they were able to confess the Creed and yet went into a different direction with application of the concept. To see what occurred in Germanic Christianity and how many of them, notably the Goths and Vandals, adopted Arianism instead of other forms (and often came to wage war with Rome) is fascinating...

In regards to forced conversions (which did occur on all sides), Arianism found something of a second home in the western part of the Roman Empire in its twilight days due in part to how Christianity seems to have been less sophisticated and the notion of orthodoxy wasn't strictly enforced on certain matters....even though small pockets of Arianism remained in the east and over time blended into Monophysitism, which the Byzantine Emperors eventually managed to stamp out in their realm officially. In the fouth century the Barbarians who lived at Rome’s margins (later plundering it in order to establish new kingdoms of their own ) were largely converted to Arian Christianity rather than Orthodox or Catholic Christianity - AND language seems to have been a big factor...as it was with many developments in the Church in Eastern Christianity when seeing the differing trajectories.

I'm reminded of the efforts of missionaries such as Ulfilas (who also famously translated parts of the Bible into the Gothic language), as well as the Germanic tribes’ acquisition of Roman captives, most of whom happened to come from primarily-Arian parts of the Empire.

For an excellent review on the issue, one can go to Barbarians in the Meditteranean [/url] or The Church Faces the Empire and the Barbarians - Early ... as well as Barbarians and Politics at the Court of Arcadius - Alan Cameron, Jacqueline Long, Lee Sherry - Google Books. And the best read, by far, that one can consider on the issue (which has been discussed elsewhere before in Orthodoxy is Roman Catholic) would be The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity

​

​

The point is that in many respects, when it came to others using violence in the Christian world, there was the dynamic of people often reacting based on reactions - and POLITICAL dynamics that occurred in the midst of things to influence others to a certain end.

Again, at best everything is mixed, with some better times and some worse times. Saying or writing that it would be better for this group to win or rule over another group is not calling them liberators.

The EO likewise have said that the Turkish yoke is preferred to the Papal tiara. Does this mean that the EO view the Turks as 'liberators' from the prospect of Latin domination? I am willing to bet that they would tell you that things are not that simple, and a polemical point meant to underscore the distatefulness of the idea of Latin domination is not meant to exalt the Turks in any fashion whatsoever.

That doesn't line up with history, dude, as several times there has already been the dynamic that one ruler in charge isn't the best option but it's better compared to what occurred before. This happened with Lincoln and the North whom slaves did NOT universally love since they did not romanticize the Union when they saw a lot of mistreatment happening. But in comparison with the South, there were a lot of things that were liberating.

This also happened throughout history when it came to Latin America at multiple points and the language discussed on what was made possible with the American Revolution even for slaves (still not considered people ) and yet fighting for freedom since they felt it was better than nothing compared to where they used to be. We used words as freedom/liberation to describe things - but words were NEVER used in a over-simplified state.

People having to deal with nuance on all sides understand this simple concept - and this is why it is pointless when resorting to extremes saying that groups being thankful in a pragmatic sense do not see something as liberating. That's taking the etymology of a word and missing context in the extreme.

And this is the point with Muslims - because regardless of what was said early on, at SEVERAL points since that era, the bottom line is that Muslims were HIGHLY celebrated (just as Jews were) by Orthodox. Writings by Priests/Bishops all show this - and your point with focusing on equivocation with the term "liberation" misses that since it still does not address where Christians repeatedly said throughout the centuries their appreciation for Muslims. Nothing in your quotes you have shared disproves that or makes your case that the Church universally despises Muslims and found them all distasteful simply because of earlier points in history where willingness to work with them after Byzantine conquered meant that they were pragmatic/thankful for better options in some areas...
Fr. Antony Paul: Understanding the Differences & Intersections in Coptic Orthodox and Chalcedonian

 

[dzheremi]

...Anyway, I am done attempting to discuss anything with you. I feel there is little to be gained in attempting to show how what was originally a rather minor pair of corrections concerning what the historical record actually shows (and still is) is not aided by bringing in all these outside views from EO, or whatever else you are wanting to discuss (since again my problem is with the way that some of my fellow OO present our faith in the context of the historical and present reality of the division). Again, I have no problem with the EO, at least not in relation to the talk by Father Anthony. As I pointed out earlier, he has said what I have long said myself (e.g., concerning the fifth council and many other points), so why should I have a problem with it just because I disagree on two very specific points where I feel the historical record is at odds with the priest's characterization? That you are apparently re-imagining my argument to be much wider-reaching and more negative and destructive towards OO-EO unity than it is tells me all I need to know about what kind of argument you think I'm making (e.g., the bit in your post about "it is important to actually deal with what Cradle understand rather than bringing in ideologies that don't deal with OO thought since Cradle OO don't have a mindset that all things EO are bad and all things OO are good" is really outside of the bounds of anything I've written, as I most definitely DO NOT have the idea that all EO things are bad or all OO are good in the first place; this isn't a matter of cradle v. convert -- I've quite literally never encountered that idea among any OO, never been taught it by any leader of the Church, and never espoused it myself...and so it is nowhere present in my posts). I am not interested in attempting to defend the strawmen that you have created for whatever reason, so I will bow out now. It is not a matter of personal enmity or hurt feelings; by your replies, I do not think you understand what I have written. If you wish to attribute our lack of ability to understand one another to what you see as my failure to engage with historical sources, that is your right to do. I do not see it that way at all.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

...Anyway, I am done attempting to discuss anything with you.

This attempt at being personal (pointless) rather than dealing with facts never helps since it doesn't help when there's no listening at several points. And as it is, if one is done, they need to simply be done. They don't need to make a public announcement.

As a point of fact, discussing means addressing what others say from the beginning - so you did not attempt that when there were several things Fr. Anthony and myself said that were skipped right past. We've disagreed plenty of times (just as other EO have disagreed with me and had times we agreed with them). Disagreement includes public discussion (not for the sake of embarrassing you or anything, but to show that there is more than one voice for our communion here, and so the things that are particular to you aren't really "OO matters" so much as dzheremi matters, lest people confuse your words [or mine, for that matter] for "the OO stance" on a given issue).

That said, again, talking about "I'm done attempting...." come off a petty, IMHO since one does not need to announce as if they're placing their feelings all over the web - or as if anyone really lost anything by you choosing to not discuss.

It's not that deep - and This is why you do not really make a case for anything since you argued past what was said, including the points in the OP video by Fr. Anthony. If and when you speak on something that neither deals with the Priests/Bishops or stances of the Church, of course I am going to disagree with you on it - and as said before, you pushing your view forward is NOT the same as pushing forward all things the Church has noted. Period.

Discussion wise, I asked for you to be respectful and focus on the video in the OP - and you did not with the derail. That's disrespectful enough - and you didn't show anything people didn't already know when it came to quotes you cited at length. This combined with avoiding the Church and the Bishops at several points does not show a real awareness of what OO actually teach.

So it'd behoove you to focus on the post next time before going on any kind of rants that don't have anything to do with the video - this is something you were warned on before when not confusing your passion for OO with actual dealing with facts, as it does nothing assuming you alone are the representation.

As said before, it'd behoove you to seriously learn to quit being personal in any discussion and be objective as much as possible.

I feel there is little to be gained in attempting to show how what was originally a rather minor pair of corrections

Seriously - You took a supposedly 'minor' point and when others responded to it, gave a MASSIVE response in return. Sorry - but the issue is showing to be one that means more to you than you wanted to admit since you chose to go back/forth on the issue and even bring it up in a manner that had nothing to do with what Fr. Anthony even said in the video.

You never followed up with him to see what he has said on the history of the Church with Muslims and when others noted that not all things Muslim were praised by the Early Church as they gained freedom from Byzantine (at certain points), you responded PAST what was said - and basically re-argued the same things others already said.

That's splitting hairs on your part and it rarely goes anywhere.

concerning what the historical record actually shows (and still is)

Again, speaking past the facts on historical basis does not establish your case - but if you choose to read into things that no one has said, that is your own choice.

is not aided by bringing in all these outside views from EO

Respectfully, there's No need for spin-doctoring, seeing that you already avoided what the Bishops do AND what "H.H. Pope Tawadros II has already done on the issue when it comes to EO. You also OVERSTATE your case since it was never an extensive amount of outside views from EO - so trying to label things other OO have noted for some time shows a willingness to label anything you disagree with as automatically 'outside' instead of outside your realm of comfort.

You already responded in the manner that many converts to OO do when trying to raise an issue with anything EO say - ignoring where OO have already noted EO to be Orthodox AND ignoring where the Priests/Bishops have done the same referencing others in EO, as said before. That is your own beef if trying to make all things out as if EO are not to be referenced because that happens outside Orthodoxy and sometimes people bring that in.

This was already noted before in your choosing to ignore anything/everything showing EO and OO to be equals - and that's what happens with converts many times. But it doesn't reflect the Church in its stances - It's not what folks said when Fr John Behr came/worked with St Mary's Coptic Orthodox Church, Diosese of Melbourne. It's not what was said when HH Pope Tawadros II spoke in support of others in EO working actively with OO. It definitely isn't consistent with what other OO have done for a long time when it comes to culture/differing resources, as seen plainly (for example) in places like Think 360: Biological Apologetics Intro - and anyone can see all the videos from the 2015 Think360 Biological Apologetics Weekend Summit with speaker Dr. George Tadros: THINK360 2015 - Quick Feedback Form To See All Videos - THINK360 —at St. Mary & St. Antonios Coptic Orthodox Church.

But again, I will go with our leaders/whats happening on the national level above your sentiments any day.

One accord: The great commission
One Accorder E02: The apostolic church

​

Bottom line: Do not try to say something is an 'outside view' when an EO is saying it simply because it disagrees with YOU. That's oversimplification based on your own sentiments - and it ignores what OO have already said in agreement with it prior to any kind of speaking in agreement by EO.

An Oriental Orthodox perspective on Eastern Orthodox - Oriental Orthodox reunion​

, or whatever else you are wanting to discuss (since again my problem is with the way that some of my fellow OO present our faith in the context of the historical and present reality of the division).

Dude, some basics to consider:

(1) I did not seek you out to discuss anything - and I never have for a long time. The last time we discussed was here, but prior to that, you have chosen to respond consistently to what I say whenever I am speaking to another or making a post. If you make a comment on what I say, I will respond as best as possible - but that's as far as it goes and I'd appreciate it if there'd be no attempts in trying to make it like others were asking you a question. IMHO, That you assumed such shows you really feel others here need to learn from you as the main one sharing - and that is an issue of realizing you are not the DOMINANT representation of fellow OO here.

Don't know the reason, but as you do not represent or address the total experiences of others, I don't really care about following in line with your thoughts on our faith AT all points of engagement since it is often more so a matter of seeing you share on your personal views rather what the leadership does. That is the issue and always will be - I will go with history/addressing the panels the Bishops and Priests preside over above you and whatever you feel others need to know any day.

(2) People were here long before you were (and when you were on other forums) and they have long disagreed with you in noting a lot of the historical facts you haven't really addressed. Thus, it is not an issue if you are having problem with other OO in how they present the faith. Thus far, you have been presenting it at certain points as a convert zealous but not dealing with what CRADLE Orthodox have been saying/those who grew up in the Faith - and that will always take precedence when seeing what others have said historically. So if you bring up an issue, I'm going to bring up what is actually TAUGHT in the Faith based on what the Bishops and Priests have been stating - and I am going to challenge it if you choose to come into threads others make to challenge them.

(3) Having an issue with the way some OO present the Faith is not an issue. Arguing something that they did not assert simply because you disagree with it - and trying to place that argument at their feet as if they DID hold to it is a problem. At several points, what Fr. Anthony said was taken way into left field - and when questioned on your actual disagreements/asked for direct verification of where he or others stated things the way you say they did, there was resistance. Then it switched to several other points in saying others disagreeing with you were 'pushing an agenda for OO" and saying that them referencing the Priests/Bishops is simply 'fidelity" instead of seeing what the leadership of the Church has said - that goes way beyond an issue of presentation in the OP alone.

(4) The fact that there is an issue with the reality of division expressed a certain way already shows multiple disconnects with what the priests/Bishops have said - but as you dismissed them, this is why it was noted that there's an aspect in your thinking that many over-zealous converts have also walked in when reading past anything others say about unity - and then assuming there are no differences in expression. Some come from Protestant or RC backgrounds demanding for all things to be in boxes while not dealing with the leaders in OO to see what is said - and that is an issue. There's zero room for nuance.

Again, I have no problem with the EO, at least not in relation to the talk by Father Anthony. As I pointed out earlier, he has said what I have long said myself (e.g., concerning the fifth council and many other points), so why should I have a problem with it just because I disagree on two very specific points where I feel the historical record is at odds with the priest's characterization?

Again, no one said you did not have a couple of points you disagreed. What was noted was that on those points, there was little basis for it and others were addressing it - so it is a caricature to see others addressing the points you made and then having you claim of them that they did not acknowledge you agreed with Fr. Anthony at several points.

As you did not acknowledge what was spoken, IMHO what is evident is that there's really more of a dynamic of responding based on what you heard (or interpreted) rather than based on what was SAID. Your choice - but again, it is what it is.

That you are apparently re-imagining my argument to be much wider-reaching and more negative and destructive towards OO-EO unity than it is tells me all I need to know about what kind of argument you think I'm making (e.g., the bit in your post about "it is important to actually deal with what Cradle understand rather than bringing in ideologies that don't deal with OO thought since Cradle OO don't have a mindset that all things EO are bad and all things OO are good" is really outside of the bounds of anything I've written, as I most definitely DO NOT have the idea that all EO things are bad or all OO are good in the first place; this isn't a matter of cradle v. convert

Context, dude - as you re-imagined my point on past what was stated.

Cradle don't say or think "EO aren't Orthodox" as Converts do overall - and they don't think as you do in saying other EO referenced by the Bishops or the Priests are automatically "naive" as you noted earlier in your very first post - and this was noted in your EXACT words when saying "the good Father Anthony Paul, like all naively but sincerely reunion-minded Copts it seems, appears to try to make things equal between the two parties by saying that the EO have received traditions about us that are not true, and we have done the same about them or about Chalcedon. "

The fact that there's little ability to note that some things were not expressed the best and were in fact done based on limited linguistics at the time shows one already does not wish to deal with noting anything to be an issue - and your repeated insistence that noting limitations means 'overly apologizing" as an extreme reaction is what Cradle have said to be an issue for a long time. Your ideology is one that says EO are 'less' than OO - which is another negative. Assuming OO is superior AND having issue with what Fr. Anthony noted when it came to unity between the Faith. That is something Cradle Orthodox have long pointed out when it comes to what many Converts tend to do.....and it has been discussed by other Egyptians before as I've seen several times.

-- I've quite literally never encountered that idea among any OO, never been taught it by any leader of the Church, and never espoused it myself...and so it is nowhere present in my posts). I am not interested in attempting to defend the strawmen that you have created for whatever reaso

As you already gave several on the OP and have done so before, I don't know why you'd think others would be interested in responding if it's only a strawman when you do not mention something. Seriously, that's a bit dramatic and the fact is that you didn't actually deal with the video - so there needs to be more consideration on caricatures before responding next time. You create an idea of what others say and then others respond to it - don't trip when others note "You didn't listen" and then complain about strawmen. I am not interested and never have been if you cannot stay on topic in discussion because of reacting past what others say - and not dealing with your own words.

n, so I will bow out now. It is not a matter of personal enmity or hurt feelings; by your replies, I do not think you understand what I have written. If you wish to attribute our lack of ability to understand one another to what you see as my failure to engage with historical sources, that is your right to do. I do not see it that way at all.

Please note that I did not assume nor have I ever that you're about personal enmity or hurt feelings.

What I have said is that it's easy for things to get personal and you went there several times in the beginning when it seemed there was a serious level of sensitivity to someone disagreeing with you/stating why. Anyone saying others are giving faux-apology in dismissing you OR claiming others are somehow 'pushing an agenda' simply because they cite/note what the priests and Bishops have said shows there's a personal engagement there...and it seems that you were oblivious to responding past what was said - and I do not care to ever to engage anyone arguing cases/stances that others do not hold and then don't see why they respond.

I don't care to discuss with you if you come into the threads of others pushing for ideologies past whatever people actually believe - This has happened before when the same dynamics come up -As said before here (Holy Qurbana: For those either interested or looking for encouragement...:) and Holy Qurbana: For those either interested or looking for encouragement...:) ) - That's like Don Quixote chasing windmills as if they are giants - I am not going to engage that.That's why I said context matters. The fact that you repeated at several points exactly what I said but said I was not saying that is evidence enough on that - and as my main focus is the facts, I do not care at any point to be emotional on the issue. What matters is not whatever agenda you may want to bring up. What matters is what the OO Church has SAID consistently for years.

You may disagree of course.


Blessings.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

One of the best presentations I've seen ever on the differences and similarities in Chalcedonian and Coptic Orthodox. Hoping this blesses someone and helps to answers questions for anyone in the future.

For anyone else interested in the issue of others within the Church are doing, there was an excellent presentation echoing what Fr. Anthony has said on the issue of differences and it was very simple in format.

Also, there's an conference which happened recently that others may be blessed by (seeing what has been brought up over the years with connections throughout the Body of Christ - although some of the older members are not as active anymore here). But there's an amazing conference coming up called the One COnference. It has been going on for some time and very wonderful..

• 
  
• The One Conference International | Christian Orthodox Unity

​

Awesome work that they've been doing for sometime Glad for their heart in Orthodoxy and truly taking seriously what Christ noted in John 17. As an example of some of the people who've spoken there at the conference, I am reminded of "Mama Maggie" Gobran, a Coptic Christian who has been called the “Mother Teresa of Cairo" - she also spoke at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary on October 21, 2016.

 

[orientalorthodox]

+
Dear Dzheremi,

I was reading through this dialogue and want one point clarified for the sake of completeness. You quoted this:

Constantine bishop of the metropolis of Bostra said to Bishop
Dioscorus: ‘The holy council invites your holiness to present yourself before it. It is assembled in the martyrium of the holy and victorious martyr Euphemia.’
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I am under guard. Let them say if I am allowed to come.’
Acacius bishop of Ariaratheia said: ‘We were not sent to the hallowed magistriani but to your sacredness, to ask you to take the trouble to repair to the holy council assembled in the martyrium of the holy martyr Euphemia.’
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I am ready to appear at the holy and ecumenical council, but I am prevented.’


But you failed to note that this was simply the first summons. This was not his response to the second or third summons, nor is this a point for us to be embarrassed of. St. Dioscorus rightfully basically said, "Do what you're gonna do, because you've already made up your minds". So I'm not sure to what end you have a difficulty in the posted video saying that the reality is that the excuse that he didn't attend was not because he was hindered. What is it that you think is dangerous in acknowledging that there has been an exaggeration in what transpired? The minutes are clear on these issues.

If you read the rest of the minutes beyond what you quoted, the dialogue goes like this:

"Atticus bishop o fZela said: 'A plaint against your holiness has been presented just now to the holy and ecumenical council by the most God-beloved Bishop Eusebius. The great and holy council has informed your holiness through us that you should appear and make a defense agaisnt teh charges.'

St. Dioscorus: I have said once alread ytaht I too have an intention to go to the holy and ecumenical council, but as your God-belovedness can see, I am prevented by the hallowed magistriani and scholarii.

They brought for him the permission from the assistant of the master offices and told him.

Dioscorus: Having collected myself and considered what is advantageous, I make this reply. At the previous meeting of the council the most magnificent officials who were in session took certain decisions after a full discussion of each point. Since a second meeting of the council summons me to a revision of the aforesaid, I request that the great officials and teh sacred senate, who attended the council previously, should also attend now, so that these same decision can be reconsidered in their presence.'

I'll snip through the rest of the minutes and then,

"Then, a third summons was sent to "the most sacred Bishop Dioscorus"; but he positively and finally refused to come. He had nothing more to say than what he had said to former envoys (III:66-78)

So, it's a bit misleading to take his response to the first summons and say "This is why he didn't go", when very clearly and explicitly he had much better and stronger reasons not to go. I feel that in trying to make that first response his main response, you may actually be doing St. Dioscorus a disservice rather than a service.

So, yes, it is a made up story today, to say that the reason that he didn't go was simply because he was prevented, and it is St. Dioscorus himself who says so.

Pray for me.