OO and EO

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Gotta link to OO beliefs on Chalcedon:

Here.

 

[copticorthodoxy]

and i will ask him for something

You seem to ask alot of questions answering my responses and questions of you. Debate is a give and take.

do he believe that the Liturgy is an expression of the church's beliefs ??

Yes. The Eastern Orthodox liturgy is the expression of the Church. We pray what we believe and we believe what we pray. So to repeat myself, again.

i mean in the liturgy we confess our faith by the prayers , hymns , icons , ...etc.

I dont know what the OO liturgy confesses because I am in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Why would I want to know what the OO confesses when they reject The Council of Chalcedon - 451 A.D. statement already made by the Church? Is this Holy Spirit filled document of The Council of Chalcedon - 451 A.D. to difficult to understand or is it they that "pick at nits"?

so i ask our brother orthodoxy to read every word of the Alexandrian Coptic Orthodox liturgies and tell me where is the monophytism ??

The fact you reject the above Council is enough for me to believe you are not with us thus are against us. Plain as day in my opinion. Insisting I accept you as a "brother" in the faith would be to reject scripture also.....

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which he received of us.


Are you asking me to ignore this command?


2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.


Am I being asked to join in your trangression by rejecting the The Council of Chalcedon - 451 A.D.?


here is link for our liturgies
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/liturgy/index.html
this liturgies are from the oldest liturgies in the world

here is the Official Statements between the EO & OO
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/statements.html

I will read your sites however answer my questions.

Do you or do you not reject The Council of Chalcedon - 451 A.D.?

If not then why insist on a different verbage that I must accept?

Why do you patronize me as the Roman Catholics do if we are "brothers"?

the unworthy

kyril

You don't want to study or know about us because we reject the 4th Council !!
so how you debate about our Christology while you don't know it
we study each others to know each others well .
and what if everyone did that !!!

we used to see you nestorians but we see you Orthodox when you see us Orthodox . because we are the Orthodox and if others don't see us Orthodox so they are not like us

So , Please my brother study well our Christology before you debate about it and if you don't like so don't waste your time about the OO

 

[Grigorii]

Fine they USED TO think of us that way. How nice they changed their minds about us.

Such is the result of theological research, dialogue, and most of all the guiding presence of the Holy Spirit.

Now why do they STILL reject the 4th council? Why are they STILL not willing to lay the issue aside and INSIST we UNDERSTAND them while they STILL reject.......

The Eastern Orthodox have undergone a similar process that the Orientals have undergone. We generally recognize them as Orthodox, hence the inter-communion agreements that exist between us.

Conciliar declarations are expressions of the Orthodox Faith they are not the exhaustive definitons of it.This is why St. Cyril is able to accept John of Antioch on the basis if a common expression of Faith rather than on the basis of how many councils he holds to be ecumenical.

From what I understand the Oriental Orthodox, in particular the Coptic Orthodox Church, accepts the Eastern Orthodox councils as Orthodox. They do not regard these councils as part of their local traditional development. To them there are not 7 Ecumenical Councils, but 3. To us there are 7 because the Byzantine Empire and the Byzantine Orthodox Faith-tradition have gone through this history. The Oriental Orthodox, living outside the Byzantine Empire have no such history. But they do have the same faith as we do.

Returning once more to Cyril, he agreed to reunion with John of Antioch because he saw that there were two different expressions of the same christological dogmatic minimum. The wisdom of St. Cyril is once again put into practice by the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox in their Common Declarations of Faith. There is no need to ask anything further than the recognition by the Oriental Orthodox that our councils are in fact Orthodox, likewise all we need to accept is Oriental Orthodox christology as Orthodox. We are not obliged to blend both christological expressions, nor to accept one and deny the other. There is always the Cyrillian solution.

The Council of Chalcedon - 451 A.D.

So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

It must be noted that this confession is Orthodox precisely when refracted through a Cyrillian prism, as it was intended to be. The Nestorians (Assyrian Church of the East) have traditionally found little trouble accepting Chalcedon at face value even Nestorius could have accepted it, and he did in fact accept Leo's Tome as a perfect expression of his own christological thought. Chalcedon is a negative or apophatic statement of faith and needs interpretation or rather a kataphatic fleshing out. This was done in response to the heresies of monothelitism and monoenergism. Two peculiarly Byzantine heresies.

NO, we are to compromise to bring unity....is that what I am being told?

Yes. Just like St. Cyril and St. Athanasius before you. A compromise in terminology to express the one Orthodox Faith. Not a compromise of this Faith. Following the lead of our God-given hierarchs that have pointed us in this direction by the Common Declarations of Faith and intercommunion agreements. Based upon the one same Faith we hold in common. Our Orthodox Faith unites us.

Gregorios

 

[Grigorii]

We should explain to our peoples that both families of Churches have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith.

They have struggled together side by side to defend the Orthodox faith against the heretical teachings of both Nestorius and Eutyches.
Despite the misunderstandings and political influences which caused the condemnations of the past, they are able now to continue together defending and witnessing the Orthodox faith.

Iow the present relations and mutual recognition does not require a compromise in faith. From neither the Oriental Orthodox (HG Metropolitan Bishoy is Coptic Orthodox) nor from us, the Eastern Orthodox. Unity is based on sameness of Faith not on compromising Faith.

They have jointly confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ is Himself the eternal only begotten Son of the Father who became man for us and for our salvation and was born from the blessed virgin St. Mary in the fullness of time. Thus the Word of God (the Logos) has two births, and that is why the blessed Virgin is called "Theotokos".
The two families have also confessed together that the eternal Son of God had united to His Divine nature, the perfect human nature which He took from Saint Mary. The union is confessed to be according to nature

(kata fusin) in His one simple person. That is why the union is a hypostatic union (enwsiV kaq upostasin).

The above is true for both Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Christians. Eastern Orthodox Christians should have no problems at all in agreeing to these words by an Oriental Orthodox Metropolitan.

The two families have also always confessed that the union of the natures is without mingling, without change, without confusion. The natures, i.e. the divinity and humanity, out of which the incarnate Word of God was composed, continued to exist in the union. Those who spoke of the two inseparable natures in Christ are expressing the continuity of their existence without change, and those who spoke about one incarnate nature are expressing the state of their existence, since oneness is the normal expression of any union even when there is no mingling, change or confusion.

[FONT=&quot]

I have emphasized the most important statement of His Grace Bishoy above. This is precisely where the common dogmatic minimum of faith is found; upon which the unity of our 'churches' is based.

[/FONT]

Both families have always confessed together that our Lord Jesus Christ, the incarnate Logos is consubstantial with the Father according to His divinity and consubstantial with us according to His humanity, but without sin.
Both families agreed together that the Logos incarnate is the subject of all willing and acting of Jesus Christ. All the properties and functions of the Divine nature, including natural will and natural energy, are inseparably and unconfusedly united with the human nature with all its properties and functions including natural will and natural energy.

Here His Grace affirms the double consubstantiality of Jesus Christ our Lord, and he then proceeds to afirm the human and divine wills and energies in Jesus Christ. The Oriental Orthodox are neither monophysite, nor monothelite/monoenergist.

It became a misnomer used against the followers of Pope Dioscorus that they are monophysites. On the contrary they always confessed the continuity of existence of the two natures in the one incarnate nature of the Word of God. Non of the natures ceased to exist because of the union and the term “Mia Physis” denoting the incarnate nature is completely different from the term “Monophysites”. Perhaps the correct nomination should have been the “Cyrillian” or the “Miaphysites” instead of the “Monophysites”. For example when we say monogenis

(monogenhV) we mean that there is a single and unique Son of God Who is consubstantial with the Father. The Oriental Orthodox do not believe in a single nature in Jesus Christ but rather a united divine- human nature.

Here the Metropolitan addresses the problem of monophysisism and explains the Oriental Orthodox affirmation of one nature. The one nature is the united divine-human nature of Christ. The two natures still exist in Christ fully intact. But they exist unitedly according to a natural union. A union on the level of nature.


Metropolitan Bishoy then concludes by saying that it is necessary for the Oriental Orthodox to realize that the Eastern Orthodox were not, and never have been, Nestorians and that the 4 extra councils among the Eastern Orthodox are simply and precisely Orthodox.

To conclude our Oriental Orthodox people should realise that the Orthodox can never be Nestorians since they have condemned the Nestorian teaching of the union of two persons in an external union in Jesus Christ and confessed that the Word of God came in His Own person.
It is also clear that the Orthodox interpretation of the teachings of the four later councils of the Orthodox are the same as the doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox who have always refused both the Nestorians and Eutychian heresies. The two families are called to reinforce each other in their struggle against heresies and to complete each other as one body of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.
The positive response of the Oriental Orthodox to the Orthodox interpretation is identified by the lifting of anathemas against Orthodox Fathers and Councils, as well as taking use of every positive element in the teaching and acts of the four later councils of the Orthodox.

I do not think more is needed, except for beginning to practice our already existing unity in the one same Orthodox Faith.

Now I'm off to Manhattan to the Armenian Cathedral where SCOBA (Eastern Orthodox) and SCOOCH (Oriental Orthodox) are gathering to express their oneness in faith by a joint Vespers.

Gregorios

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Gregorii... your posts are truly superior (to mine). Your wording is so precise and to the point. Thanks for your posts. You said what I wanted to say, but with more facts and more eloquence. Kudos my friend!

john

 

[copticorthodoxy]

Gregorios , your post number 64 in this thread is really great , i hope the EO can read and understand it well

 

[orthodoxy]

You don't want to study or know about us because we reject the 4th Council !!
so how you debate about our Christology while you don't know it
we study each others to know each others well .
and what if everyone did that !!!

we used to see you nestorians but we see you Orthodox when you see us Orthodox . because we are the Orthodox and if others don't see us Orthodox so they are not like us

So , Please my brother study well our Christology before you debate about it and if you don't like so don't waste your time about the OO

end of transmission

 

[orthodoxy]

Do you honestly think that? I mean, honestly? Let's not be condesceding.

Yes. I walked away from the entire protestant faith because they walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which he received of us.

I see the OO in copticorthodoxy as the same. Notice he will only rant and accuse me but not reason about the Holy Spirit lead 4th council.

My peace is shot with him thus I will end my discussion accordingly.

the unworthy

kyril

 

[Greg the byzantine]

Now I'm off to Manhattan to the Armenian Cathedral where SCOBA (Eastern Orthodox) and SCOOCH (Oriental Orthodox) are gathering to express their oneness in faith by a joint Vespers.

Gregorios

OOh Are you going to St. Vartek's? It' such a beautiful Cathedral

 

[hungrytiger]

Wow, Gregorios, those are some pretty powerful statements from HG Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette. Thank you for posting them and commenting on them. I'm sorry if I missed it, but where did you find them?

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Rhetoric.

 

[Grigorii]

OOh Are you going to St. Vartek's? It' such a beautiful Cathedral

Yes,.. It is indeed. Very beautiful. The vespers was done according to Coptic tradition tonight, and I think the main celebrant was Anba David.

Have you been there yourself?

Beautiful,.. Great food afterwards too!

Gregorios

 

[Grigorii]

Wow, Gregorios, those are some pretty powerful statements from HG Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette. Thank you for posting them and commenting on them. I'm sorry if I missed it, but where did you find them?

Yes, they are very powerful! His Grace Bishoy made them in a letter he wrote: Interpretation of the Christological Official Agreements between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches which was published Febr. 3, 1998. They can be found on the Metropolitan's official website.

Gregorios

 

[hungrytiger]

Yes, they are very powerful! His Grace Bishoy made them in a letter he wrote: Interpretation of the Christological Official Agreements between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches which was published Febr. 3, 1998. They can be found on the Metropolitan's official website.

Gregorios

Thank you.

For anyone else who might be interested I thought I'd share some links.
The letter, as a .doc file, is linked to on his offical website here: http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/english/Dialogues.htm
There also seems to be a HTML version of it here: http://www.neobyzantine.org/orthodoxy/basics/eastern_churches.php

 

[theoforos]

Can Coptic priests be married? In the latest issue of the magazine of the Finnish association of Orthodox students, Logos, there was a short news article about the self-proclaimed Coptic "pope", and the article said that one of the things he wants to change is that the Coptic priests should be allowed to get married just like the Eastern Orthodox priests can. I always thought also Coptic priests could be married...

It also surprised me that the article implied that Orthodox priests can 'get married' as they certainly can 'be married' but they can't 'get married' after becoming priests. I don't know if the error is due to the editors of the magazine or the Coptic pope wannabe.

 

[choirfiend]

The head bishop of the Coptic Church is called Pope. There's no "wannabe" factor there; it is simply his title, like that of Patriarch, Metropolitan, or Archbishop.

I imagine it's simply a lack of nuance in the magazine.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Can Coptic priests be married? In the latest issue of the magazine of the Finnish association of Orthodox students, Logos, there was a short news article about the self-proclaimed Coptic "pope", and the article said that one of the things he wants to change is that the Coptic priests should be allowed to get married just like the Eastern Orthodox priests can. I always thought also Coptic priests could be married...

It also surprised me that the article implied that Orthodox priests can 'get married' as they certainly can 'be married' but they can't 'get married' after becoming priests. I don't know if the error is due to the editors of the magazine or the Coptic pope wannabe.

Do you think he was referring to bishops rather than priests and he or the magazine just misspoke (or you remembered wrong)? I posted the question in the VitD forum.

 

[Grigorii]

Can Coptic priests be married? In the latest issue of the magazine of the Finnish association of Orthodox students, Logos, there was a short news article about the self-proclaimed Coptic "pope", and the article said that one of the things he wants to change is that the Coptic priests should be allowed to get married just like the Eastern Orthodox priests can. I always thought also Coptic priests could be married...

Yes Coptic priests can be married. I've seen them and met them. The Patriarch of Alexandria has been called 'Pope' at least as long as the Pope of Rome. The Patriarch of Alexandria did not usurp the title nor does he style himself such. It is simply his ancient title and indicates he is a Patriarch. The article you've read is very much mistaken.Now there is also a small uniate Church in Egypt, what they are up to I do not know.

It also surprised me that the article implied that Orthodox priests can 'get married' as they certainly can 'be married' but they can't 'get married' after becoming priests. I don't know if the error is due to the editors of the magazine or the Coptic pope wannabe.

Again, Pope is his title because he is a Patriarch. There is nothing 'wannabe' in this. It is merely a misunderstanding of the history of the title on your part or perhaps the article you have read. The other error rests with the author/editor of the magazine that published the article you mentioned.

Gregorios

 

[theoforos]

The head bishop of the Coptic Church is called Pope. There's no "wannabe" factor there; it is simply his title, like that of Patriarch, Metropolitan, or Archbishop.

It wasn't pope Shenouda, but the other guy who has started calling himself pope and says pope Shenouda has failed to reform the Coptic church. I think there's been discussion about him on TAW before.

There's no doubt pope Shenouda can be called pope.

Do you think he was referring to bishops rather than priests and he or the magazine just misspoke (or you remembered wrong)? I posted the question in the VitD forum.

I think he may have been referring to bishops and the magazine just got it wrong. But on the other hand, bishops can't be married in the Eastern Orthodox church either while the article said priests should be able to get married just like in the Eastern Orthodox church. It wasn't a direct quote so it's difficult to say how much of it was from the "pope" and how much from the magazine. Maybe the "pope" talked just about bishops and nothing about priests or the Eastern Orthodox church, and the magazine remembered wrong and thought he had been talking about priests, and added the "just like in the Eastern Orthodox church" part?

Thanks for posting the question on the other forum. We'll probably get the answer sooner or later.

 

[Ioan cel Nou]

Again, Pope is his title because he is a Patriarch. There is nothing 'wannabe' in this. It is merely a misunderstanding of the history of the title on your part or perhaps the article you have read.

Unless by 'wannabe' pope, he is referring to someone other than Pope Shenouda. My memory is hazy, but I'm pretty certain that there has recently been some controversy with some vagante bishop trying to form his own Holy Synod in opposition to Pope Shenouda's. If that's the case then this vagante bishop could indeed, and correctly, be referred to as a 'wannabe' Pope.

James