History of the Trinity

[The Liturgist]

Very interesting that. I remember having this argument/discussion with an ex-Catholic, originally it was over the Catholic position of most Protestants. He believed the Church saw them still as doomed (Counsel of Trent) while I had to point to what their actual position is now that came from Vatican II which is much more optimistic more along the lines of "separated brethren".

Anyway this guy, was in the Charismatic movement especially the Protestant end of it and we got into talking about anathemas. And he skeptically asked if there was anything like Biblical judgement that ever happened from something like that. And I had to cite the Arius case, and compare it to some stuff in the Bible, or even things like the death of Herod in Josephus.


But he really scoffed, but he did something I didn't expect, he looked up some ancient accounts most likely from a key word search, and found their was one ancient Greek historian who believed Arius was poisoned and scoffed at the supernatural interpretation of the event. Which I thought was very odd, but it did not completely surprise me. Because lots of the theology of Protestants coming from that movement comes from an Anabaptist antisacramental idea, which often ends up being attack against anything supernatural in the name of going against "superstition". But personally I see this as an instance of "double mindedness". Or a bit of self serving arbitrariness on the order of things like "Confirmation Bias", or other kinds of stuff from Social Psychology like Self Attribution theory.

I myself once met someone who thought Arius was poisoned, but given sanitary conditions even in the relatively pristine New Rome, this seems much less likely than a pre-Columbian foretaste of the malady we now know as Montezuma’s Revenge.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Yes this got me to look at stuff on it again. I thought there were rare conditions that would cause this based on web searches. (Not just extreme Diarrhea part but where people can also poop or puke their actual guts out which I thought was part of it, at least if you took the accounts at their word rather than hyperbole etc.) The below link seems interesting probably read more of it tomorrow.


Legend of Arius’ Death: Imagination, Space and Filth in Late Ancient Historiography *

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes this got me to look at stuff on it again. I thought there were rare conditions that would cause this based on web searches. (Not just extreme Diarrhea part but where people can also poop or puke their actual guts out which I thought was part of it, at least if you took the accounts at their word rather than hyperbole etc.) The below link seems interesting probably read more of it tomorrow.


Legend of Arius’ Death: Imagination, Space and Filth in Late Ancient Historiography *

Well you know Pavel my dear friend I think I might well just leave it at the account in the synaxarion of a malady in the washroom, and not delve into the technical gastroenterological archaeology of the subject matter, no doubt an endlessly fascinating subject in its own right but a bit outside my field.

 

[Andrewn]

the three prosopa are hypostatically distinct.

I know that the 3 hypostases are also called 3 prosopa. My question is when did start to be called 3 parsopa? By whom? And it what sense?

I prefer to Latinize it as consubstantialis, because it a matter of Ephesian and Chalcedonian Christology that we are hypostatically consubstantial with Christ in respect to humanity, and Christ is consubstantial with the Father in respect to Divinity.

I can see your point. Are we of one being with Christ in respect to humanity? Can Paul's description of the Body of Christ and the expression "in Christ" be understood in that sense?

Very funny, Addai of Alexandria! You know to this day Copts and Assyrians absolutely hate each other;

Yes, John of Antioch famously labelled Cyril of Alexandria as a "monster, born and educated for the destruction of the Church." Destruction of the Church and perhaps the Empire, if it did not start in the council of 431, it certainly started shortly after in the council of 449 or the council of 451. Do you know much about the character and politics of Cyril the Great? I'm not asking about his theology.

I'm asking you all kinds of historical questions because you would know more than most people .

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I know that the 3 hypostases are also called 3 prosopa. My question is when did start to be called 3 parsopa? By whom? And it what sense?

Don't know exactly who but noticed this...

3.3.1 Gregory of Nyssa
Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335–ca. 395) is now known as one of the Cappadocian Fathers, the other two being his older brother Basil of Caesarea (ca. 329–79) and Gregory Nazianzus (329–89). These three active bishops are credited with establishing a consistent terminology for the Trinity, namely using hypostasis or prosopon for what God is three of, and ousia (along with phusis) for what God is one of. (On their lives, careers, and extant writings, see Ayres 2004 and Hanson 1996.) We look briefly at Nyssa’s views here, as illustrating several points about the pro-Nicene consensus.

Trinity > History of Trinitarian Doctrines (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[The Liturgist]

I know that the 3 hypostases are also called 3 prosopa. My question is when did start to be called 3 parsopa? By whom? And it what sense?

Well prosopon means person, and this was the Nicene doctrine, and hypostasis in turn was used at Ephesus.

I can see your point. Are we of one being with Christ in respect to humanity? Can Paul's description of the Body of Christ and the expression "in Christ" be understood in that sense?

I think the best way to understand it is in terms of the Patristic and Eastern / Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian theological concept of Theosis.

Yes, John of Antioch famously labelled Cyril of Alexandria as a "monster, born and educated for the destruction of the Church." Destruction of the Church and perhaps the Empire, if it did not start in the council of 431, it certainly started shortly after in the council of 449 or the council of 451. Do you know much about the character and politics of Cyril the Great? I'm not asking about his theology.

St. Cyril of Alexandria is worthy to be called St. Cyril the Great and to be venerated by every Christian. While John X of Antioch was basically a crypto-Nestorian politician and unpleasant, and Nestorius used violence on his theological opponents within the church, every foul allegation made against St. Cyril cannot be substantiated and amounts to rumor and innuendo, for example, the idea that he killed the evil Pagan witch Hypatia; there is no proof of this, and his enemies like Nestorius had reasons to say that he did because it would have resulted in him being deposed; his direct successor and theological heir Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria, who the Copts correctly venerate as St. Dioscorus, was deposed due to what amounted to a lie told to him by Eutyches and dirty tricks by Ibas.

Now, if we look at the accomplishments of St. Cyril, he defended the apostolic faith that was previously established in the writings of St. Athanasius and which was upheld both by Chalcedonian and Oriental Orthodox churches, regarding the identity of the Virgin Mary, the hypostatic union of God and Man in Jesus Christ, and also opposed Pelagianism; not only did he do this, but he also saw to the complete translation of the sacred scriptures and the Divine Liturgy into Coptic, something which was commendable, as it took way too long before St. Cyril finally got it done considering Antioch had completed the translation into Syriac in the fourth century and Rome had completed the translation into Latin in the second century. I believe that the translation into Coptic had been neglected because wealthier Egyptians tended to speak Greek as a second language, and the translation of the Bible and the Divine Liturgy into Coptic was extremely important, because we have fourth century heretical Gnostic sects that are written in Coptic and this translation doubtless helped to bring about the final demise of first-generation Gnosticism of the form originating with Simon Magus, leaving only the second generation varieties like Manichaeism and Paulicianism, as well as non-Christian varieties, and it also brought to an end Egyptian paganism, which had some connection to Greek paganism and Gnosticism via Hermeticism.

So really, St. Cyril the Great is the reason why there are ten million Coptic Orthodox Christians, why we understand Jesus Christ as representing a union of God and Man as opposed to a man who happened to have a close relationship with the Son of God, and why people no longer worship Osiris. And I personally do not think he murdered Hypatia, but we do know that Nestorius did employ violence against his opponents.

I'm asking you all kinds of historical questions because you would know more than most people .

Thank you, that means a lot to me. I try to provide information that is accurate, impartial where disputes exist, but that is in accord with the traditional Christian faith as understood by the early Church, by the Magisterial Protestant Reformers like Cranmer, Luther, Calvin and Wesley, and by the persecuted Christians of the former Soviet Union and the Islamic world.

 

[Andrewn]

he also saw to the complete translation of the sacred scriptures and the Divine Liturgy into Coptic, something which was commendable,

St. Cyril lived from around 376 to 444 AD. The Sahidic version of the NT was translated at the end of the 2nd century. Perhaps Cyril completed the translation of the OT.

A long time ago, I used to live near a library that contained an English translation of the Coptic NT. Too bad I don't have access to this any longer.

 

[The Liturgist]

St. Cyril lived from around 376 to 444 AD. The Sahidic version of the NT was translated at the end of the 2nd century. Perhaps Cyril completed the translation of the OT.

A long time ago, I used to live near a library that contained an English translation of the Coptic NT. Too bad I don't have access to this any longer.

I should have specified that he completed translation into Bohairic Coptic, which was the dialect of Upper Egypt, and which is the version still used in Coptic Orthodox liturgy, not to mention the liturgy itself, which is actually in a fifth century context more important as most Coptic speakers, especially Bohairic speakers, were illiterate, and without someone to read it to them, which happened in the Church, more precisely, in the liturgy, it was inaccessible. To this day the Coptic Church reads more of the New Testament at each Divine Liturgy than any other church, and the entire Old Testament is read during Psalmody (a component of their unusually arranged divine office that kind of corresponds to Vespers, Nocturns and Matins, although there are also the Evening Raising of Incense and Morning Raising of Incense, which typically precede Evening Psalmody and the Divine Liturgy, and the Hours of the Agpeya, which begin with the First Hour, which is obviously Prime, but the Eleventh Hour is often considered to be Vesperal, the Twelfth Hour corresponds with when Vespers happens in Greek tradition I believe (well technically it historically happened at sundown, which in a location where the day was twelve hours long would be callibrated to be eleven hours from the first hour), and then there is The Prayer of the Veil, said by clergy and monastics before bed, and so, conceptually, Vespers could be the Evening Raising of Incense, the Twelfth Hour, the Eleventh Hour, or the Evening Psalmody; historically monks used the Agpeya, which contains the Psalter and a fixed Gospel, and certain prayers for each hour, and monks tended to memorize it.

The Psalmody is also of monastic origin but developed contemporaneously with Vespers and Matins, whereas Robert Taft SJ of blessed memory, who aside from being the only Jesuit of recent years I really like, is also the greatest historian of the Divine Office in churches Eastern and Western, and who shared my view that the health of a church can be partially determined by how many people attend the Divine Office in addition to the Sunday Eucharist, in which case the Coptic Church is one of the healthiest (it really is if you look at metrics like Sunday attendance, population growth, age distribution, and other factors; their old rivals the Assyrians are also very healthy), argued that the Morning and Evening Raising of Incense were relics of a Cathedral Office. This sounds complicated, and it is, but Coptic worship, like Byzantine Rite worship, is ornate and beautiful.

Also, speaking of reading the entire Bible in one year, the Coptic Orthodox Church is the only ancient church that does that, including liturgically reading all of Revelations; the Apocalpyse, as I prefer to call it, is read in its entirety in the liturgy of Holy Saturday (Easter Even, which the Coptic Orthodox call Bright Saturday; the Eastern Orthodox call the first Saturday after Pascha Bright Sunday, and the week after Pascha Bright Week, speaking of which, on Mount Athos, many of the monasteries read on the afternoon of Holy Saturday the Apocalypse, but thus is considered to be extra-liturgical, but is certainly historically related to the Coptic practice.

Moving back to St. Cyril, the oldest of the Coptic Orthodox liturgies is a translation of what is commonly called the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark in Greek texts, which was translated during the reign of St. Cyril into Sahidic (and Bohairic) Coptic and is named for him. Most worship was in Sahidic Coptic initially, until the rise of Islam, when Bohairic became prevalent.

 

[The Liturgist]

St. Cyril lived from around 376 to 444 AD. The Sahidic version of the NT was translated at the end of the 2nd century. Perhaps Cyril completed the translation of the OT.

A long time ago, I used to live near a library that contained an English translation of the Coptic NT. Too bad I don't have access to this any longer.

A PDF of an English Translation the Sahidic Version

A PDF of an English Translation of the Bohairic Version

These are less important in the world of New Testament translations than the Syriac Peshitta or Latin Vulgate, or the Vetus Latina, for that matter, each of which, along with the Minority Text and the Byzantine Text, is worth reading a translation of by itself (the Peshitta, Vulgate, and Byzantine/Majority Text and the Textus Receptus New Testament all tend to agree, and reflect what is called the Byzantine text type, the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinucus and Codex Vaticanus, and the Minority Text critical edition composed from them reflect the Alexandrian text type, while the ancient Vetus Latina, which the Vulgate was intended to replace, but which survived for purposes such as liturgical phrasing due to the beauty of its classical Latin, for example, it is from it we get “Gloria in Excelsis Deo” which in the Vulgate is “Gloria in Altissimus Deo”, is the sole complete specimen of the otherwise obscure Western text type.

 

[Andrewn]

Most worship was in Sahidic Coptic initially, until the rise of Islam, when Bohairic became prevalent.

It is common to attribute Bohairic to northern Egypt and Sahidic to southern Egypt. I think there is evidence that Sahidic is actually classical Coptic, all over Egypt. When this became almost extinct in Church (replaced by Arabic), the Bohairic dialect prayers used in the monasteries of the Nitrian Desert were introduced. Nitrian monasteries have had a huge effect on the Coptic Church. Majority of Coptic Patriarchs have been selected from among their monks. The current Pope Tawadros and the previous Pope Shenouda were both monks in the Nitria monasteries.

the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinucus and Codex Vaticanus, and the Minority Text critical edition composed from them reflect the Alexandrian text type,

The Codex Alexandrinus is a representative, not of the Alexandrian, but of the Byzantine text-type in the Gospels.

 

[The Liturgist]

It is common to attribute Bohairic to northern Egypt and Sahidic to southern Egypt. I think there is evidence that Sahidic is actually classical Coptic, all over Egypt. When this became almost extinct in Church (replaced by Arabic), the Bohairic dialect prayers used in the monasteries of the Nitrian Desert were introduced. Nitrian monasteries have had a huge effect on the Coptic Church. Majority of Coptic Patriarchs have been selected from among their monks. The current Pope Tawadros and the previous Pope Shenouda were both monks in the Nitria monasteries.

You are of course correct about the influence of the Nitrian monasteries; they function as a major administrative resource and also provide theological education, whereas other monasteries elsewhere in Egypt function in a purely monastic capacity.

Now, regarding the alternate theory you are mentioning concerning Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic, I have seen it, but I disagree with it for the same reason the majority of scholars do, that being regional attestation of it in upper Egypt and the preservation of ancient documents in Bohairic, for example, the oldest Gospel fragment in Bohairic dates from the fourth century.

By the way, the reason why the Coptic language was replaced by Arabic in the vernacular is that the Muslim rulers of Egypt began encouraging the mass learning of Arabic, and eventually under the Mamluks, they adopted a policy wherein they would cut out the tongue of anyone heard speaking Coptic, Sahidic, Bohairic, or otherwise. The church preserved the language ecclesiastically, however, and is aggressively teaching it to children in Egypt and the Diaspora, which makes it possible that it will re-emerge as a vernacular language.

The Syriac Orthodox Church has a official desire to eventually phase out Arabic in its diaspora communities, worshipping in Syriac and the local vernacular languages only, and is also working to reintroduce Syriac (while a majority of Assyrians speak Assyrian Eastern Neo-Aramaic in the vernacular, only a small minority of Syriac Orthodox and Antiochians speak a vernacular Aramaic dialect, and it is extinct among the Maronites).

The Codex Alexandrinus is a representative, not of the Alexandrian, but of the Byzantine text-type in the Gospels.

Indeed, but only in the Gospels; the rest of the New Testament is of the Alexandrian text-type, and my understanding is that while the original critical Minority Text was composed purely based on the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, more recent critical texts have used the Codex Alexandrinus as well.

Given this, I regard it as Alexandrian, although I suppose technically it would be more accurate to regard it as being of a mixed text type.

By the way, are you familiar with how the Codex Sinaiticus was stolen from St. Catharine’s Monastery in Sinai? It was quite horrible, and while the monastery did get a fragment I am a strong proponent of the return of the fragments currently held by the British Library and the Leipzig University to the monastery. There is also a fragment held by the Russian National Library; I have heard less in terms of controversy about that fragment because the Church of Sinai, of which the monastery presides,* is an autonomous part of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which has a very good relationship with the Russian, Serbian, and Georgian Orthodox churches, as these collectively adhere to the Julian Calendar, while everyone else partially or entirely uses the Revised Julian Calendar (except for the Finnish Orthodox Church which uses the Gregorian Calendar).

*The Church of Sinai is very nearly just the monastery; it is the smallest autonomous Orthodox Church; there are a few chapels and missions elsewhere, however, and it is technically the canonical Eastern Orthodox church in Sinai.

 

[Andrewn]

By the way, are you familiar with how the Codex Sinaiticus was stolen from St. Catharine’s Monastery in Sinai? It was quite horrible,

I read somewhere that Codex Sinaiticus was in the monastery trash and about to be burnt. What's your take on this?

while everyone else partially or entirely uses the Revised Julian Calendar

I thought churches affiliated with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the OCA used the Gregorian calendar. What is the Revised Julian calendar?

 

[hedrick]

While I agree there are diverse interpretations of the Trinity, I would propose that there are only two basic conceptualizations rooted in the Nicene Creed and Quincunque Vult (the Athanasian Creed) which are held by the mainstream churches whose members account for the majority of Christians*:

Firstly, we have the Western filioque concept, in which the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, which is in the numerical majority, owing to its use by the Roman Catholic Church and a minority of Sui Juris Eastern Catholic Churches, and by extension, nearly all Protestant churches that recite the Creed.

While it's related to the filioque, I think the common approaches tend to start from God as one and show how there is some distinction within him, and those that start with the 3 individual persons and show how they constitute one God.

Ideally these approaches end up in the same place, but that's not always entirely clear.

The filioque has another problem: it's language that isn't in the creed that everyone agreed to. It's possible to avoid it simply for that reason and not because of any specific theological objection. That would be my tendency.

 

[The Liturgist]

I read somewhere that Codex Sinaiticus was in the monastery trash and about to be burnt. What's your take on this?

Weird, I thought I answered that, but I think the consensus is that was just the story the dude, whose name I included in my apparently unposted reply, along used to justify his theft, a story that was probably perpetuated by the British Library, or else it would have no credibility, as obviously for the sake of appearances they would want to avoid being associated with criminal thefts of manuscripts by foreign adventurers. But as we know, there is a lot of treasure in London looted from foreign countries, particularly those in and around the British Empire, in which Egypt became affiliated in the 1870s, when the Albanian Khedive sought the assistance of General Charles Gordon to suppress the slave trade after the efforts of the usual Ottoman security forces, the bloodthirsty, crazed mercenaries known as the Bashi Bazouks, were unsuccessful. Even before then, however, Britain was acquiring antiquities from the Ottoman Empire, since they were allies with the Ottomans during the Crimean War.

I thought churches affiliated with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the OCA used the Gregorian calendar. What is the Revised Julian calendar?

Basically the Gregorian Calendar with Easter calculated according to the Julian Paschalion. This creates two liturgical headaches: massive elongation of the period from Christmas to the start of Lent, and the very important Apostle’s Fast in some years ending before it begins.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

St. Cyril lived from around 376 to 444 AD. The Sahidic version of the NT was translated at the end of the 2nd century. Perhaps Cyril completed the translation of the OT.

A long time ago, I used to live near a library that contained an English translation of the Coptic NT. Too bad I don't have access to this any longer.

English Downloads
Codex Schøyen 2650: A Middle Egyptian Coptic Witness to the Early Greek Text of Matthew's Gospel: A Study in Translation Theory, Indigenous Coptic, and New Testament Textual Criticism by James M. Leonard - PDF Drive
The Coptic New Testament by Hany N. Takla - PDF Drive

 

[The Liturgist]

While it's related to the filioque, I think the common approaches tend to start from God as one and show how there is some distinction within him, and those that start with the 3 individual persons and show how they constitute one God.

Ideally these approaches end up in the same place, but that's not always entirely clear.

The filioque has another problem: it's language that isn't in the creed that everyone agreed to. It's possible to avoid it simply for that reason and not because of any specific theological objection. That would be my tendency.

Not only did not everyone agree to the Filioque, but at the Council of Ephesus it was also agreed not to change the creed agreed upon at the Council of Constantinople, and this decision was re-affirmed at Chalcedon. The Assyrian version of the Nicene Creed has slightly different wording, but is semantically the same, and the Armenian version has what one might call “farcing”, that is, additional clarifications in the text similar to the footnotes to the Creed we see in the CF.com statement of faith, however, I think these are acceptable because unlike the filioque they do not alter the semantics. I think however there is an ecumenical resolution possible that could preserve the filioque in a manner that would be acceptable to the Orthodox, and that would be if the Roman church clarified that God proceeded eternally from the Father alone, but that “filioque” refers to the Son sending the Spirit. This is what may have originally been intended, when the modified creed appeared in Spain in the midst of an adoptionist heresy. It should be noted that the Eastern Orthodox did not break communion with Rome over the filioque, which Rome had resumed using after a hiatus following the Photian Synod, when they agreed to stop using it, but rather they were excommunicated for refusing to accept Papal Supremacy. My main desire is for a restoration of communion, and right now there are more pressing hindrances to that than the filioque. Since I can’t control the Roman Catholic Church, this is merely a desire, but I do have influence in Protestantism, and reuniting Protestants with the Orthodox has been an ongoing process since the Czech Reformation under St. Jan Hus in the 15th century.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I have nothing to add.

Great Discussion all.

 

[prodromos]

Not only did not everyone agree to the Filioque, but at the Council of Ephesus it was also agreed not to change the creed agreed upon at the Council of Constantinople, and this decision was re-affirmed at Chalcedon. The Assyrian version of the Nicene Creed has slightly different wording, but is semantically the same, and the Armenian version has what one might call “farcing”, that is, additional clarifications in the text similar to the footnotes to the Creed we see in the CF.com statement of faith, however, I think these are acceptable because unlike the filioque they do not alter the semantics. I think however there is an ecumenical resolution possible that could preserve the filioque in a manner that would be acceptable to the Orthodox, and that would be if the Roman church clarified that God proceeded eternally from the Father alone, but that “filioque” refers to the Son sending the Spirit. This is what may have originally been intended, when the modified creed appeared in Spain in the midst of an adoptionist heresy. It should be noted that the Eastern Orthodox did not break communion with Rome over the filioque, which Rome had resumed using after a hiatus following the Photian Synod, when they agreed to stop using it, but rather they were excommunicated for refusing to accept Papal Supremacy. My main desire is for a restoration of communion, and right now there are more pressing hindrances to that than the filioque. Since I can’t control the Roman Catholic Church, this is merely a desire, but I do have influence in Protestantism, and reuniting Protestants with the Orthodox has been an ongoing process since the Czech Reformation under St. Jan Hus in the 15th century.

Have you read "Church, Papacy and Schism" by Philip Sherrard? If you have then you will understand why your suggestion won't fly.

 

[Let's go]

I baptise you in the NAME of the Father

the NAME of the Son

And the NAME of the Holy Spirit

The name meant that they opened up there spiritual gate , there relationship that they had with Jesus ......then the holy spirit...then Father God
The name was there prescence there eroma. In my name ..lol then nothing happens.....you don't hold the spiritual gate . IN His name is when he appears,when he appears it happens.


They then released there 3 gates of encounter whom they knew. upon the disciples to establish the church. The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit

The apostles knew his body his spirit and his will.

 

[The Liturgist]

Have you read "Church, Papacy and Schism" by Philip Sherrard? If you have then you will understand why your suggestion won't fly.

No, but I will take a look. And without even looking I trust you are correct. So perhaps I won’t read it because the schism is so depressing a reality as it is, and there are factions who want to exploit the desire to reconcile the schism towards the nightmare extrapolated by Fr. Seraphim Rose (I find it striking how his work Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future basically predicted the disasters like Jonestown, the Baghwan Rajneeshi cult in Oregon, and other psuedo-Hindu New Age con-artist gurus, like the Bikram Yoga sex abuser, Deepak Chopra and other cult leaders of the Oprah Winfrey-guest variety, and the Heaven’s Gate movement, which was actually organized around the same time he was writing about the dangers of the UFO movement. And of course problems surrounding spiritual counterfeits manifesting in certain fast growing denominations with strange worship practices. There were other factors that he did not comment on, for example, the dangerous growth of Mormonism and Islam, and the disturbing growth of the Unitarian Universalist Association, which combine with what he did comment on.

As a matter of practical course however, it should be noted that the Antiochian and Syriac Orthodox have intercommunion, if not concelebration, and the Syriac Orthodox have according to reliable reports become the third church (after the two branches of the Church of the East) to reciprocate the offer of communion from Rome to Eastern Christians, albeit on a limited basis, in Turkey, where persecution of all Christians has been increasing. So indirectly, a state of informal communion already exists and there is enormous momentum behind this.

Where I would oppose this momentum would be if Francis or his successor pushes the Catholic Church in a more secular direction, but given the backlash he is experiencing thus far over Amoris Laetitia, the Amazonian Synod with the disturbing aroma of inappropriate syncretism, and the fact that the majority of bishops have refused to restrict the Traditional Latin Mass as required by Traditiones Custodes, and the more conservative bishops appointed when Pope Benedict XVI was head of the CDF and then Pope, before his disastrous resignation (which really freaks me out), the sense I am getting from my traditional Catholic friends is that the pendulum is about to swing the other way. And there did seem to be increased appreciation for the Orthodox way of doing things, but unfortunately the publicity surrounding the Ukraine Crisis and the unwarranted criticisms of, for example, ROCOR, whose presiding bishop, Metropolitan Hilarion Kapral, memory eternal, who I greatly admired, was Ukrainian, this might be compromised.

There is also the ironic situation that the most traditional churches, which have the most in common theologically, are in many cases those most concerned about ecumenical rapprochement, whereas mainline churches jn various states of secularizatiom were in the 20th century the most eager to not only reconcile but unify, and the result has been a series of disastrous Uniting Churches which look increasingly like Unitarian churches, the possible exceptions being the Church of North India and the Church of South India (but we can also thank them for popularizing celebration versus populum, as that was introduced in the eclectic blend of the Syriac recension of the Divine Liturgy of St. James with an Anglican-Western Holy Communion liturgy).

I really dislike church politics.