History of ecumenical councils of the first millennium

[The Liturgist]

BTW, Quartodecimanism is definited as the practice of celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan. But this does not make sense. The Lord was crucified the day after the 14th and resurrected 3 days later. I can understand why a certain group may celebrate Easter 3 days after Passover, rather than the following Sunday, but why should anyone celebrate Easter on Passover?

Well, exactly. Quartodecimianism does not make sense; it was the practice in some churches in the Eastern Roman Empire, but it was thankfully abolished at Nicaea.

 

[The Liturgist]

Although Monophysitism was condemned by the Fourth Ecumenical Council, its secret supporters (among the clergy and the highest nobility) remained. Even the wife of Emperor Justinian the Great was a Monophysite. Under her influence, in 535 Justinian elevated Anthim, a secret Monophysite, to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople. But at the insistence of the Pope Agapit, Justinian deposed Anfimus and a patriarch was appointed in his place, subordinate to the Council of Chalcedon.
View attachment 320277
But the Monophysites did not leave secret intrigues to gain power in the Church. They took advantage of the fact that some orthodox Christians, condemning the heresy of Nestorius (who insisted that Jesus Christ was born an ordinary person), fell into the other extreme (recognizing in Jesus Christ only the divine nature, denying the human nature in him). The Monophysites also managed to seize power over the Sees of Alexandria and Antioch (two of the five patriarchates of that time). In these cities there was a struggle between the supporters of the Council of Chalcedon and the Monophysites. It came to bloodshed: the Monophysites killed supporters of the Council of Chalcedon. In addition to the heresy of Monophysitism, other heresies also arose. Especially many new false teachings were generated by the mistakes of the church teacher Origen. He taught, in particular, that human souls existed prior to incorporation into bodies and were holy spirits (they were allegedly infused into bodies as a punishment for sins). Other well-known church teachers also made mistakes. The Monophysites accused the supporters of the Council of Chalcedon of being they are secret Nestorians.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council was in 553, in the city of Constantinople. He confirmed the condemnation by previous councils of the heresy of the Monophysites and Nestorians. The council also condemned the unsubstantiated fantastic teachings about the existence of souls before the existence of the body and other (less known) false teachings.

I have to stop you there. Empress Theodora the wife of Emperor Justinian was not a monophysite, but an Oriental Orthodox.

The Oriental Orthodox have always anathematized the Monophysites, who were led by Eutyches. Oriental Orthodox Christology, sometimes called Miaphysitism, is fully compatible with Chalcedonian Christianity, albeit defined using the precise terminology of St. Cyril of Alexandria.

As for the Monophysites, by the time of the sixth century, they had degenerated into tritheism. One of the more important Sixth Century Monophysite heretics was the Egyptian philosopher John Philoponus, anathematized by Alexandrian Greek and Coptic Orthodox Christians alike.

Unfortunately, because Ibas, who was later revealed to be a crypto-Nestorian, falsely accused the Oriental Orthodox of Monophysitism, Emperor Justinian after an initial phase of embracing OO theology including Theopaschitism and even inserting into the Byzantine liturgy as part of the Second Antiphon the hymn Ho Monogenes, which was written by the Greek Oriental Orthodox saint Mor Severus of Antioch, and which is the opening hymn of the Syriac Orthodox Divine Liturgy, turned against the Oriental Orthodox in a major way, going so far as to embrace Apthartodocetism, which while not a heresy, is a complex and problematic alternative to Theopaschitism, which ultimately became predominant in Eastern Orthodoxy. Justinian also violently persecuted the Oriental Orthodox, and it was only due to his wife that Mor Yakub bar Addai was able to avoid capture and ordain (by himself, which is permissable in emergencies, for example, if ones brother bishops are dead or imprisomed) a large number of Syriac Orthodox bishops.

Fortunately, the era of misidentification of the Oriental Orthodox as Monophysites appears to be ending, for example, if we look at the excellent relationship of the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church, as defined in this 1991 agreement: Statement of the Orthodox Church of Antioch on the Relations between the Eastern and the Syrian Orthodox Church - Nov 1991

This relationship was only strengthened by the persecution both churches suffered, for example, the abduction of Metropolitan Peter and Archbishop Gregorios of Aleppo, with both the Antiochians and Syriac Orthodox continuing to pray for their return (I fear they have been murdered, probably by Al-Nusra or a group that merged into ISIS, but there is still hope).

 

[The Liturgist]

Quinisext Ecumenical Council.​

100. "Let thine eyes look aright, and keep thy heart with all diligence" (Prov. 4:25 and 23), wisdom bids us. For the sensations of the body can easily foist their influence upon the soul. We therefore command that henceforth in no way whatever shall any pictures be drawn, painted, or otherwise wrought, whether in frames or otherwise hung up, that appeal to the eye fascinatingly, and corrupt the mind, and excite inflammatory urgings to the enjoyment of shameful pleasures. If anyone should attempt to do this, let him be excommunicated.

(No interpretation of this Canon is in the Greek edition.)

Concord.

Inasmuch as some men were wont to paint or draw on walls and boards lascivious pictures, such as women stark naked or bathing or being kissed by men, and other such shameful scenes, which deceive the eyes of beholders and excite the mind and heart to carnal desires, therefore and on this account the present Canon commands that no such pictures shall by any means whatsoever be painted or drawn or sketched. If anyone should make any such pictures, let him be excommunicated, since all the five senses of the body, and especially the first and royalest one, the eyesight, is easily led to impress the pictures of those things which it sees into the soul. That is why Solomon recommends that our eyes look aright at things that are fine and good and beautiful, and that everyone of us keep his mind and heart away from the shameful objects of the senses.​

This is an example of the relevance of the canons of the Quinisext Council. I wish you would post these, and other canons from the Pedalion, in General Theology, so people can see the ancient canon law of the Church and its prohibitions against pornography, homosexuality, voluntary castration (except where medically necessary) and so on.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

This is an example of the relevance of the canons of the Quinisext Council. I wish you would post these, and other canons from the Pedalion, in General Theology, so people can see the ancient canon law of the Church and its prohibitions against inappropriate contentography, homosexuality, voluntary castration (except where medically necessary) and so on.

In my opinion, the canons will always be relevant. The canons of the seven ecumenical councils approved the Gospel and the Bible. After all, there were many apocrypha and now some of them emerge in the form of "secret knowledge". These canons approved the Creed (what Christians believe).

Regarding the fulfillment of the commandments, since the devil is resourceful and came up with new ways of breaking the commandments, it was necessary to approve new canons. For example, very few commandments were given to the first pagan Christians: to abstain from idolatry, from eating blood and strangulation, to abstain from fornication, and not to do to others what you do not wish for yourself.

But then it was noticed that by abstaining from fornication by deed, people commit adultery in their hearts, thereby violating the commandment of Jesus Christ. When the church hid women from such people behind special clothes, they began to watch pictures of an erotic nature and again violated the commandment in spirit, although they adhered to the letter. The church then introduced a canon forbidding such paintings to be drawn and viewed.

Of course, now there are new sins. During the time of 1th thousend there were theatrical spectacles showing either eroticism, or cruelty, or ridiculing the dignity of a person. Now there is photography, film, television and the Internet. Therefore, while fulfilling the canon by letter, it can still be violated in spirit.

There are commandments against drunkenness. The canons lay down rules for what to do with drunkards. And in our time, drugs and rock music have also appeared, which also darken the mind, like drunkenness. There were sorcerers and shamans, and mediums and psychics appeared. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the commandments and canons not by letter, but by spirit. In this form, they will be relevant until the coming of Jesus Christ.

I do not know how to quickly move the topic to another section, because I have not yet fully mastered this forum. If you give me a hint, I will try to do it.

 

[The Liturgist]

“A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, ‘You are mad because you are not like us.’” (St. Anthony the Great)

St. Anthony the Great - Orthodox Church Quotes

Just FYI, that icon of St. Anthony the Great is Coptic Orthodox, and they are among the Oriental Orthodox churches falsely accused of monophysitism.

Now there were actual monophysites, led by Eutyches, who degenerated into tritheism by the sixth century, when their most prominent representative was the Alexandrian Greek philosopher John Philoponus. Eutyches was anathematized by the Oriental Orthodox, as was monophysitism.

Since the Oriental Orthodox believe in the doctrine of hypostatic union, and in a divine and human nature of Christ, their Christology is extremely close to Chalcedon and identical to the wording used by St. Cyril the Great. Like the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox believe that the human and divine natures of Christ are hypostatically united without change, confusion, separation or division.

Indeed it was Mor Severus of Antioch who actually wrote the hymn Ho Monogenes, which in my opinion proves the Christological Orthodoxy of anyone who understands it and recites ot was introduced into the Byzantine Liturgy when Justinian attempted to reconcile with the Oriental Orthodox, before changing his mind and killing large numbers of their bishops (only one Syriac Orthodox bishop survived, Jacob Bar Addai, who ordained a large number of replacement bishops, which is why some call the Syriac Orthodox “Jacobites”, however, the lines of apostolic succession were later broadened via the Coptic, Ethiopian and Armenian churches and the Numidian Orthodox Church, which was killed off by Muslims. At any rate, whereas in the Byzantine Rite and the Armenian Rite, which has a Byzantine-influenced Liturgy of the Catechumens, the hymn Ho Monogenes is sung immediately following the Second Antiphon, in the Syriac Orthodox liturgy it is sung at the very start, when the curtain in front of the altar (sometimes there is an iconostasis, sometimes not) opens. The Copts use the hymn on Great and Holy Friday, but their divine liturgy features a Confiteor Ante Communion which makes

Speaking of which, the Syriac Orthodox Church in 1991 entered into a formal agreement with the Antiochian Orthodox Church, which recognizes the legitimacy and orthodoxy of the Syriac church, allows Antiochians and Syriacs in the Middle East to receive the sacraments in either church, provides for marriages between the two churches and disallows conversion between the,

 

[Andrewn]

Justinian attempted to reconcile with the Oriental Orthodox, before changing his mind and killing large numbers of their bishops

Why did Justinian change his mind? Was it because the OO did not accept the decisions of the Second Council of Constantinople? From my readings, it seems that the Roman Church and many EO bishops accepted the decisions (whatever they were) under duress. I know the decisions that have been attributed to this council but the actual proceedings have been lost, and it is unclear why anyone should consider this a valid council. I know that Anglicans and most Protestants accept only four councils.

 

[The Liturgist]

Why did Justinian change his mind? Was it because the OO did not accept the decisions of the Second Council of Constantinople? From my readings, it seems that the Roman Church and many EO bishops accepted the decisions (whatever they were) under duress. I know the decisions that have been attributed to this council but the actual proceedings have been lost, and it is unclear why anyone should consider this a valid council. I know that Anglicans and most Protestants accept only four councils.

No, the Second Council of Constantinople included an attempt to make peace with the Oriental Orthodox by anathematizing Theodore of Mopsuestia. Or, rather, Emperor Justinian anathematized Theodore of Mopsuestia in the Three Chapters which were subsequently ratified by bishops who then convened the Fifth Ecumenical Council. It is actually debated whether or not the Second Council of Constantinople itself actually ratified the Three Chapters. In any case, there is nothing in the content of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II) that the Oriental Orthodox object to. For example, they are not Monergists, or Universalists.

I think rather Justinian grew impatient with the Oriental Orthodox. His wife, the Empress Theodora, was also Oriental Orthodox, and indeed she helped ensure the safety of Bishop Mor Jacob bar Addai (Baradaeus) after the purge of other Syriac Orthodox bishops, and he in turn ordained, acting solus, about a hundred or so Syriac Orthodox bishops under clandestine circumstances.

One interesting attribute of the West Syriac liturgy used by the Syriac Orthodox, and the Maronite Catholics who separated from them in a schism, and the that sets it apart from the other ancient liturgical rites is it has very few litanies, and I have an hypothesis that this was due to the Syriac Orthodox Church having been, moreso than the other Oriental Orthodox churches, forced underground during Justinian, since litanies were historically sung in procession, with the Litany of Peace from the Byzantine Rite and the Roman Catholic Litany of the Saints both having originated in liturgical processions. Given the severity of the persecution of the Syriac Orthodox church, my thought is perhaps they were less able to engage in processions than even the other Oriental Orthodox churches or the Assyrian Church of the East. I would be interested in the thought of my Nasrani Syriac Orthodox friend @coorilose and my other Oriental Orthodox friends @dzheremi and @Pavel Mosko on this point.

 

[ValeriyK2022]

Why did Justinian change his mind? Was it because the OO did not accept the decisions of the Second Council of Constantinople? From my readings, it seems that the Roman Church and many EO bishops accepted the decisions (whatever they were) under duress. I know the decisions that have been attributed to this council but the actual proceedings have been lost, and it is unclear why anyone should consider this a valid council. I know that Anglicans and most Protestants accept only four councils.

In Orthodoxy, it is customary to be guided by a practice that has justified itself for centuries. In ancient times, the holy fathers saw the manifestations of the Holy Spirit en masse. Thus, the decisions of all Seven Ecumenical Councils have been tested by time. From practice, from the fruits of the Holy Spirit, it became known that it is God's will that the decisions of all the Seven Ecumenical Councils be carried out.

Jesus Christ said: "I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it".
(Matthew 16:18).
From this passage we conclude that: 1) the church will be one, not many; 2) church will be uninterrupted from the time of the apostles until the end of the world.

The Holy Spirit does not make mistakes. If this was true in the first millennium, it remains true in the third millennium.

If we cancel the decision of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, it is the same as removing bricks and blocks from the foundation of the church. The whole building will collapse. Even the books of the Bible (including the New Testament) were approved by these decisions. Those denominations that rejected the decision of the Seven Ecumenical Councils have already stopped believing that the entire Bible is the Word of God and even they start doubt the Gospel.

 

[The Liturgist]

In Orthodoxy, it is customary to be guided by a practice that has justified itself for centuries. In ancient times, the holy fathers saw the manifestations of the Holy Spirit en masse. Thus, the decisions of all Seven Ecumenical Councils have been tested by time. From practice, from the fruits of the Holy Spirit, it became known that it is God's will that the decisions of all the Seven Ecumenical Councils be carried out.

Jesus Christ said: "I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it".
(Matthew 16:18).
From this passage we conclude that: 1) the church will be one, not many; 2) church will be uninterrupted from the time of the apostles until the end of the world.

The Holy Spirit does not make mistakes. If this was true in the first millennium, it remains true in the third millennium.

If we cancel the decision of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, it is the same as removing bricks and blocks from the foundation of the church. The whole building will collapse. Even the books of the Bible (including the New Testament) were approved by these decisions. Those denominations that rejected the decision of the Seven Ecumenical Councils have already stopped believing that the entire Bible is the Word of God and even they start doubt the Gospel.

No one is talking about rejecting any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The problem is rather that the Oriental Orthodox were incorrectly accused of being Monophysites post-Chalcedon.

Oriental Orthodox Christology is consistent and compatible with Chalcedon, the Oriental Orthodox reject Monergism and Universalism, which were the main heresies anathematized at Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Regarding the Sixth Ecumenical Council, they reject Monothelitism, which was a stupid attempt to reconcile with them (however, this heresy may have been what caused the Maronite Catholics to separate from the Syriac Orthodox, as it is widely speculated they were Monothelite before entering into communion with Rome formally, and their affection for the office of the Pope, if that were true, may have been because Pope Honorius I, the only Pope of Rome in antiquity to be anathematized by one of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, was an ardent promoter of the heresy of Monothelitism, which again, the Oriental Orthodox reject.

And the Oriental Orthodox anathematize the Monophysites as well; the actual historical monophysites led by Eutyches degenerated into Tritheism by the sixth century. One noted sixth century Monophysite heretic anathematized by the Coptic Orthodox Church is the Alexandrian philosopher John Philoponus.

So thus, there is no issue with Chalcedon, Constantinople 2, or Constantinople 3,

And of course regarding the Second Council of Nicaea, the Oriental Orthodox have always categorically rejected iconoclasm, and at no time did any Oriental Orthodox Patriarchate ever get taken over by iconoclasts, and when some clergy in the Armenian church professed iconoclasm, they were promptly deposed.

Now of course it was entirely the fault of a superstitious emperor and his superstitious generals who attributed Islamic military prowress to their iconoclasm that the brief takeover of the Church of Constantinople by iconoclasts and the subsequent wave of iconoclasm in the Byzantine capital happened. Traces of this still exist today, for example, the iconography in the apse of the church of Hagia Irene was never fully restored; my understanding is that before the outbreak of iconoclasm it was painted in a manner similar to the domes of the Hagia Sophia. Fortunately in 843 after the death of the last Iconoclastic emperor, his wife St. Theodora the Blessed, the ethnically Armenian empress and regent for their son Emperor Michael IV acted to depose the Iconoclast Patriarch John VII, and she then worked with the new Orthodox Patriarch St. Methodios I to restore the veneration of icons, at the Triumph of Orthodoxy in 843 AD. Had St. Theodore the Blessed not been of Armenian ethnicity, she might not have grown up in a church that like the Eastern Orthodox church actively venerates icons, and Iconoclasm would have continued.

Thus Oriental Orthodoxy assisted Eastern Orthodoxy in eliminating iconoclasm, and also it was the Theopaschite Christology of St. Severus of Antioch that prevailed over the Apthartodocetism embraced by Justinian in his later years, and indeed we now know it was St. Severus who composed the hymn Ho Monogenes, which is one of the most potent confessions of Christological Orthodoxy. This is why the Syriac Orthodox Divine Liturgy begins with the singing of Ho Monogenes, and it is also sung in the Armenian Orthodox Divine Liturgy after the Second Antiphon like in the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and the Coptic Orthodox also sing it, particularly during Holy Week.

Indeed St. John of Damascus is widely venerated by Oriental Orthodox; I have visited on many occasions a Coptic Orthodox parish that uses a prayer written by St. John of Damascus to prepare the congregation for the reception of the Eucharist. No actual Monophysite could venerate St. John of Damascus given his staunch opposition to that heresy.

This is why the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church have intercommunion, and likewise the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria recognize each other’s legitimacy and allow intermarriage, and married couples can communicate at the church of either spouse. I have also heard reliable reports of Coptic pilgrims receiving communion at St. Catharine’s Monastery, which is the Cathedral of the autonomous Church of Sinai, under the Omophorion of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople.

This is also why many Eastern Orthodox churches had special memorial services in 2015 commemorating the Armenian genocide, for example the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

By the way, I have met several Eastern Orthodox who count the Photian Synod and the Palamist Synod as the Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils, and I think there is merit to this. The Oriental Orthodox obviously supported St. Photius, and reject the Flioque, and Hesychasm has become widely accepted in Coptic monasticism thanks to the influence of Father Lazarus el Antony, who has promoted the use of the Jesus Prayer in the Coptic Church.

So consequently, the reunion with the Oriental Orthodox, which is happening and is likely only to be opposed by a minority of Eastern Orthodox who have had no contact with the Oriental Orthodox, will not entail the revocation derrogation, deprecation or alteration of the teachings of any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, or indeed the Nine, for those who count the Photian and Palamite Councils. I expect only the Old Calendarists will object to the reconciliation with the Oriental Orthodox, but they may yet change my mind.

 

[Andrewn]

I think rather Justinian grew impatient with the Oriental Orthodox.

"As to the Monophysites, they already, and for a hundred years, had the worst possible opinion of Chalcedon. Moreover--as we, with what is called "hindsight," can so easily see--the Monophysites had by now washed their hands of the Catholic Church, and what its councils decided would no longer have any interest for them.

"The subsidiary questions apart--for example, should councils condemn men dead long ago, who died in the peace of the Church?--what had the bishops of 553 done, in their list of reprobations, except condemn yet once again the Nestorian theology (as Vigilius had condemned it in his own message to the council) whether this heresy showed--as it certainly did--in the writings of Theodore, or of Theodoret and Ibas? The last two had, of course, corrected themselves long before they died. Even their controversial language about St. Cyril had been, as it were, apologised for and the amende accepted, in the reconciliation of 433. This did not, of course, alter the fact that they had, once upon a time, written erroneously. But the condemnations of 553, in so far as it touched these writings, was little better than spite."

Constantinople II, 553 | EWTN

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

www.ewtn.com

the heresy of Monothelitism, which again, the Oriental Orthodox reject.

No, not really. The OO believe in Monothelitism.

Theology - CopticChurch.net

https://www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/christlecture2.pdf

And many of the Chalcedonian bishops (not only Pope Honorius and the Maronites) also believed in Monothelitism and went so far as to cut St Maximus' tongue and mutilate his hand because he taught diothelitism!

In modern times, the famous scholar William Craig believes in Monothelitism.

 

[The Liturgist]

No, not really. The OO believe in Monothelitism.

I can understand why Pope Shenouda’s poorly written and poorly translated article ,igjt suggest that, but its not accurate.

Monothelitism specifically requires rejecting Miaphysitism, since the Monothelites believed that the two natures were united by one divine will. One cannot hold to Monothelitism while believing in Miaphysitism, the two being mutually exclusive.

Rather, if we look at the historical records, it becomes clear that the Oriental Orthodox did not embrace Monothelitism , but indeed, the Maronites separared from the Syriac Orthodox over this issue.

However, this does not mean the OO necessarily believe in two wills, simply that they reject the Monothelite heresy, which requires a semi-Chalcedonian belief syste,.

+

Lastly, I would suggest that you avoid basing your assessments of OO theology on the writings of Pope Shenouda, which are controversial, and often at odds with the theology of the Armenians and the Syriac Orthodox. I would rather suggest you consult with Fr. Peter Farrington of St. George’s Mission in the UK, who also wrote an excellent book, indeed the definitive book, on Oriental Orthodox Christology. He is Coptic, but he can also suggest representatives of the Syriac and Armenian and Ethiopian tradition.

 

[The Liturgist]

Saint Paisius the Athonite said (in a conversation about sinful passions) that one can fall from a ladder both to the left and to the right. The same applies to heresies. For example, the Arian heresy denied the divine nature of Jesus Christ. As a reaction to it, another heresy appeared, which agreed with the Orthodox in the divinity of Jesus Christ, but denied His human nature (Monophysites). But if Jesus Christ did not have a human nature, then his suffering on the cross is devalued, because God cannot suffer. In the same way, if Jesus Christ did not have a human will, that is, human desires, then his suffering is also devalued, although not as much as in the Monophysite heresy.

When praying before Golgotha in the Garden of Gethsemane, we see how the human will of Jesus Christ did not want to suffer and He had grieving mortally. But He subordinated His human will to His Divine will. Orthodox Christians believe that although the human will of Jesus Christ was also, He always was subordinating it to the Divine will. The dogma of two wills and actions in the Lord Jesus Christ (adopted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople).

Note that the Monophysite heresy of Eutyches, which is anathematized by the Oriental Orthodox (and indeed Pope St. Dioscorus personally anathematized Eutyches as well) as my friend @dzheremi will confirm, originated as a response to Nestorianism, not Arianism. The heresy of Apollinarius could be seen as such a reaction to Arius, however, for in response to Arianism, Apollinarius asserted that Jesus Christ had a human body but a divine soul, which is of course completely wrong, and also taught Chiliasm.

The Oriental Orthodox, like the Eastern Orthodox, believe that in His incarnation, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ assumed our humanity and hypostatically united it with His divinity, without change, confusion, separation or division.

 

[The Liturgist]

Some of them claimed that the limited human nature was absorbed in Christ by the infinite Divine essence, as a drop of vinegar is absorbed by the sea.

All actual monophysites claim that. It is their doctrinal distinctive, and what sets them apart from the Coptic Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox, who merely believe the exact teaching of St. Cyril, in a manner which is compatible with Chalcedonianism.

Some people, some of whom are members of the schismatic Old Calendarist movement, have been falsely accusing the Oriental Orthodox of Monophysitism because they are alarmed by the unity that now exists between the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Church, which has been a staunch ally of the MP and the UOC against the attacks of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but we can assert that these attacks are unilateral and biased, because the people making them, such as Dr. Nicholas Marinides, have been conspicuously silent about the Assyrian Church of the East, which also has greatly improved ecumenical relations with the Orthodox, but which is known for, among other things, actually venerating Nestorius, even though the ACOTE officially renounced Nestorianism as a Christological concept in 1975 shortly after Mar Dinkha IV became Catholicos.

The reality is that improved relations with both groups are desirable, but the Assyrians although now very close to Orthodoxy thanks to having rejected Nestorianism, still have a ways to go - for example, their own canons require there to be an icon of Christ Not Made By Hands on every altar, but the majority of their parishes have no icons at all. There were historical excuses for this - the destruction of their icons by Muslims, and the lack of a protecting power for the Church of the East, which unlike the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox, lacked an ethnarch to represent them as a distinct millet in Constantinople at the Sublime Porte (the court of the Sultan), so local Muslim tribal leaders could vandalize their churches without fear of reprisal in many cases. However, in the diaspora this is not the case and has never been the case.

Conversely, the Oriental Orthodox have demonstrated their Orthodoxy beyond any shadow of a doubt, by virtue of the fact that they are the only church that has never had any of its patriarchates taken over by Iconoclasts. All Oriental Orthodox parishes have icons and icons are universally venerated by them.

Additionally, the text of the Oriental Orthodox liturgies is identical to the Orthodox in all important points. For example, the Christological hymn “Ho Monogenes” (Only Begoten Son and Word of God) is the opening hymn in the Syriac Orthodox divine liturgy, and is also used by the Copts on Great and Holy Friday, and by the Armenians after the Second Antiphon, for the Armenian synaxis or Liturgy of the Catechumens is identical to the Eastern Orthodox synaxis. As I see it, this hymn is the definitive test of Christological Orthodoxy, since no Arian, Nestorian or actual Monophysite would sing it.

Finally, I have attached to this post the text that outlines the unity between the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch (which is really more Arab than Greek at this point, but it is the Eastern Orthodox church of Antioch, and in the English-speaking world is commonly called Antiochian), with certain key sections where Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch, memory eternal, and his holy synod, either affirmed the Orthodox status of the Syriac Orthodox Church or the Oriental Orthodox more broadly, or else enacted provisions governing relations between the two churches which would be impossible if the Syriac Orthodox Church were heretical. It should also be noted there exists a similiar agreement between the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and its Greek Orthodox counterpart, and it is also not a coincidence that both His Beatitude the Greek Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa and His Holiness the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria have a name which if translated into English, is “Theodore II.”

A Synodal and Patriarchal Letter.

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

Beloved:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, the following decisions were taken:

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

Damascus
12 November 1991

Patriarch Ignatios IV
of the Greek Antiochian Church

Patriarch Ignatius Zakka Iwas
of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch

 

[The Liturgist]

And the Orthodox, for political reasons, agreed not to accept such people into their faith. Is this fair in relation to such people? And is it fair for those who are mistaken not to tell and not to preach about what exactly they are mistaken in and doom them to this?

Anyone from the Syriac Orthodox Church is Orthodox, and they are able to receive the Eucharist in Antiochian Orthodox parishes, and vice versa. That’s the point.

There are even Catholics in Ukraine, for example, who are better than many Orthodox Christians.

The difference, obviously, is that the Ukrainian Catholics are not Orthodox Christians, whereas the Syriac Orthodox are.

Only someone with no knowledge of Oriental Orthodox theology or liturgy would claim they were distinct from the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[The Liturgist]

We do not intersect with them in any way, so I have never been interested in this issue before. Never in my life have I had the opportunity to not only talk to, but even see a representative of these churches. Also, I am not a clergyman and do not have a spiritual education. I am an ordinary parishioner of the UOC. If they are really Orthodox, then that is very good.

Indeed, its a profound blessing, and I don’t think any live in the Ukraine, although there are some in Russia (Moscow, specifically), Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the UK, and eastern Turkey, Tur Abdin, used to be a major population center before the genocide in 1915 which they call the Sayfo (the Sword), and some Suriac Orthodox still live there, but they
experience constant danger.