Is John of Damascus a Saint in the Oriental Orthodox Church

[Barney2.0]

I recently found a few Coptic websites that name John of Damascus as one of their Saints despite him being a staunch Chalcedonian Melkite and his hostility to the rejectors of Chalcedon in his writings so any information would be helpful,

Lives of Saints St John of Damascus

القديس يوحنا الدمشقي اللاهوتي الأب | St-Takla.org

 

[dzheremi]

For the Ethiopians and Eritreans, yes. For the Copts, no. For the others, I have no idea.

You will note, I hope, that the one source credited in the Coptic Place article is not a Church source (Butler's Lives of the Saints), and the shorter entry on that page references the Ochtoechos, which is not known in the Coptic Orthodox Church and never has been.

The St. Takla link appears to be some kind of translation from some other source, and some of it makes no sense, like how they give his name in Coptic. John of Damascus never had a Coptic name, because he was never connected to the Egyptian Church to begin with. Surely anyone named John would be Abba Ioannis, and we have several saints by that name who are actually recognized in our Church. St. John Chrysostom is mentioned in the commemoration during the liturgy in Coptic, for instance. John of Damascus is not, and does not have an entry in our synaxarium, and is not included in the litanies of the fathers during the midnight praises, etc.

I don't know how or why the Tewahedo commemorate him, but if I recall correctly he is in their synaxarium. It would not surprise me if they received a sanitized version of his writings and life in their language made by some Ethiopian who had a particular affinity for him and wanted to spread the 'good' parts of his writings among the people, similar to how some Nestorians claim that the writings of St. Isaac the Syrian have been scrubbed of their Nestorianism by the anti-Nestorian churches that venerate him. I don't know.

 

[Barney2.0]

For the Ethiopians and Eritreans, yes. For the Copts, no. For the others, I have no idea.

You will note, I hope, that the one source credited in the Coptic Place article is not a Church source (Butler's Lives of the Saints), and the shorter entry on that page references the Ochtoechos, which is not known in the Coptic Orthodox Church and never has been.

The St. Takla link appears to be some kind of translation from some other source, and some of it makes no sense, like how they give his name in Coptic. John of Damascus never had a Coptic name, because he was never connected to the Egyptian Church to begin with. Surely anyone named John would be Abba Ioannis, and we have several saints by that name who are actually recognized in our Church. St. John Chrysostom is mentioned in the commemoration during the liturgy in Coptic, for instance. John of Damascus is not, and does not have an entry in our synaxarium, and is not included in the litanies of the fathers during the midnight praises, etc.

I don't know how or why the Tewahedo commemorate him, but if I recall correctly he is in their synaxarium. It would not surprise me if they received a sanitized version of his writings and life in their language made by some Ethiopian who had a particular affinity for him and wanted to spread the 'good' parts of his writings among the people, similar to how some Nestorians claim that the writings of St. Isaac the Syrian have been scrubbed of their Nestorianism by the anti-Nestorian churches that venerate him. I don't know.

That’s quite strange given his staunch Chalcedonian views.

 

[Barney2.0]

For the Ethiopians and Eritreans, yes. For the Copts, no. For the others, I have no idea.

You will note, I hope, that the one source credited in the Coptic Place article is not a Church source (Butler's Lives of the Saints), and the shorter entry on that page references the Ochtoechos, which is not known in the Coptic Orthodox Church and never has been.

The St. Takla link appears to be some kind of translation from some other source, and some of it makes no sense, like how they give his name in Coptic. John of Damascus never had a Coptic name, because he was never connected to the Egyptian Church to begin with. Surely anyone named John would be Abba Ioannis, and we have several saints by that name who are actually recognized in our Church. St. John Chrysostom is mentioned in the commemoration during the liturgy in Coptic, for instance. John of Damascus is not, and does not have an entry in our synaxarium, and is not included in the litanies of the fathers during the midnight praises, etc.

I don't know how or why the Tewahedo commemorate him, but if I recall correctly he is in their synaxarium. It would not surprise me if they received a sanitized version of his writings and life in their language made by some Ethiopian who had a particular affinity for him and wanted to spread the 'good' parts of his writings among the people, similar to how some Nestorians claim that the writings of St. Isaac the Syrian have been scrubbed of their Nestorianism by the anti-Nestorian churches that venerate him. I don't know.

Also isn’t Saint Isaac the Syrian a member of the Nestorian church of the East.

 

[dzheremi]

St. Isaac was a member of the Church of the East, yes. I believe he is chronologically the last saint recognized by Orthodox, Chalcedonians, and Church of the East people alike.

 

[Barney2.0]

St. Isaac was a member of the Church of the East, yes. I believe he is chronologically the last saint recognized by Orthodox, Chalcedonians, and Church of the East people alike.

Wouldn’t that make him Nestorian since he was recognized as a Saint long after the Council Ephesus, after the Church of the East split with the Orthodox Church.

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, he was at least a member of the Nestorian church. That is somewhat different than the question of whether or not not his writings showed any Nestorianism or not. The Orthodox and the Chalcedonians say no; some of the Nestorians who I've interacted with say yes. It may be helpful to consider that the writings for which he is most known outside of the Nestorian church proper (I don't know about within it) are mainly ascetical, so his popularity was gained mostly through monastic influence, not theological debate. As unlikely as it may seem, it is certainly possible that a great many of the people who venerate him are not aware which church he belonged to since his sayings don't show partiality to it, similar to how I've had interactions with people over on the Eastern Orthodox board of this website who were not aware that Fr. Matta el Miskeen was Coptic Orthodox (they thought he was Eastern Orthodox, since he was recommended to them by their own priests, and has English editions of several of his books published by Eastern Orthodox publishing houses).