OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 07:51:30 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: EOx-OOx Differences  (Read 8572 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #45 on: February 11, 2004, 11:04:50 PM »

I agree, Linus7. Where's that comment coming from and what does it have to do with the two questions posed in this thread?
Demetri

It comes from his absolute refusal to actually listen to what our Oriental Orthodox friends have to say about what they believe.

Listening to Linus argue is strangely reminiscent of listening to members of ROAC argue, that's all.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #46 on: February 11, 2004, 11:55:06 PM »

When are you going to move to Colorado and join ROAC?  


Please don't speak like that.

Thanks,

Anastasios
Admin
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,411


« Reply #47 on: February 12, 2004, 03:42:10 AM »

Okay.

That is something I need to work on.

Sometimes it's not easy to see how something sounds to others.

Just try and read through what you type a couple of times before you click on 'Post'.
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #48 on: February 12, 2004, 09:03:36 AM »

It comes from his absolute refusal to actually listen to what our Oriental Orthodox friends have to say about what they believe.

Listening to Linus argue is strangely reminiscent of listening to members of ROAC argue, that's all.



What refusal to actually listen?

I have listened.

I have also done some further reading and investigating.

If you will look back at my posts, you will see that I quoted an OO leader regarding what they believe.

If what he said is representative of OO opinion - and it may not be - then we do not have the same faith.

For one thing, it is impossible for an Orthodox Christian to deny that our Lord has two wills; for another, no Orthodox Christian would call St. Leo a heretic.

I do not understand why anyone would insist on framing this discussion in terms of Orthodox Christianity vs. "our friends."

That is not what this is about - naming particular individuals who are OO and claiming that I am finding flaws in their faith as individuals.

BTW, I never used the term "flawed faith" in any of my posts; yet it appears in quotes as if I had.

Even after being warned, a certain individual insists again on associating my opinions with ROAC.

ROAC is not OO.

I am not OO.

Does that make me ROAC or ROAC me?

Are all those who are not OO members of ROAC?
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #49 on: February 12, 2004, 10:42:43 AM »

I apologize for my misanthropic comments towards Linus.  I ask for his forgiveness.  Once again, I show how much of a jacka$$ I can be.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #50 on: February 12, 2004, 10:49:52 AM »

I apologize for my misanthropic comments towards Linus.  I ask for his forgiveness.  Once again, I show how much of a jacka$$ I can be.



You're not one of those.

I enjoy your posts.

All of us here are going to disagree now and then.

I apologize if I have offended you and likewise ask your forgiveness.

You have mine already.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,148



« Reply #51 on: February 12, 2004, 06:12:30 PM »

Peace,

Let me clarify these issues first:
Quote
Linus: I can't think why you should have mentioned it either, since it has no bearing on this discussion
I meant what Brother Mor figured out. The attitude is the same in both cases, and sorry if it offended you or if I made a wrong judgement about you.
Quote
Linus: I was in this case I was referring to specific remarks made by a specific OO leader
The position of the OO leaders regarding the issues related to unity with EO and RC or even the Assyrian churches can be found in the protocols regarding the joint meetings. As far as the Coptic Orthodox Church , there official position about theology and the union with the other denominations are expressed by HIS HOLINESS POPE SHENOUDA, Pope of Alexandria.
Quote
Linus to Schulz: I enjoy your posts
I too enjoy Schulz's post and want to thank him for his spirit.


Regarding the union: To my understanding, that the OO and EO are past the theological part which caused the schism in Chalcedon. In fact, the excommunication of St. Discorous was due to canonical (from Calcedonian side of course) and not theological issues. The EO cleared their position regarding the way they understand the question of the Two Natures and proved they are non-Nestorian and never were.The OO clarified their position regarding the monophysite heresy and showed that they never did adopt such heresy, and a common declaration of faith was put together.
The problem is in the questions of the Councils and the Saints.

So raising up doubts about the belief of the OO regarding theological matters relating to Chalcedon would lead to questioning the ability of EO leaders, Patriarchs and Bishops, to point out a heresy in the OO belief system. It is either they don't know or, with all due respect, conspiring against the EO "faith" for false union.  
This is of course not the case and I am sure they are in this union talks because there is nothing wrong with the OO theology.

Peace,
Stavro
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,148



« Reply #52 on: February 12, 2004, 06:41:46 PM »

Peace,

the following posts are my own research regarding different issues like Chalcedon, The Tome of Leo, Leo ....... . I might not be very articulate or not very updated on this issue, and I don't claim to be a historian or theologian. I would appreciate very much if any of the OO brothers would correct or add any missing points.

Regarding Councils 5-7 from OO point of view:
We don't have issues with dogmas clarified in these councils (I think this is the official OO position). We can look at them as sources as long as they interpreted in an orthodox way by the EO.
But we will not sign on them because:
1- Our approval was not required in the first place to make these councils valid. Why should we sign now ?
2- These councils fought heresies that crept into the Chalcedonian church and they were never an issue in our Church. They are irrelevant to us.
Suppose for the sake of argument that the EO had a council to discuss the gender of the angels, for example, and they condemned every "heretic" who said that they are men. Are we required to sign on those councils ?
3- The position the EO church takes on this issues is a position of enforcing primacy on the OO and acting as the "Orthodox" part who puts conditions to accept the "prodigals", which is not the case. A union is between equals only.
4- Would the EO agree to sign on the councils of the RC after 1054 a.d. in order to have a union ? The same assumptions and conditions apply in both cases.
5- Would the EO sign on local meeting of the OO church, like Adessa Baba in 1965 for example and every other Holy Synod decision of the Coptic Church, for example ? We don't ask EO to do so, and we ask the same from them. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Peace,
Stavro

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,148



« Reply #53 on: February 12, 2004, 06:59:40 PM »

Tome of LEO:
We understand that the EO are not nestorian, and that they interpret the Tome in an orthodox manner. But if we look at a paragraph like the following :

There is nothing unreal about this oneness, since both the lowliness of the man and the grandeur of the divinity are in mutual relation. As God is not changed by showing mercy, neither is humanity devoured by the dignity received. The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence. As the Word does not lose its glory which is equal to that of the Father, so neither does the flesh leave the nature of its kind behind.

1- Now, this on/off switch between the Word and the Flesh, each doing its own "thing", the Word being glorified by the power of divinity (miracles), and the Flesh being humilated as humanity (acts of violence), is very Nestorian. Reports about Nestorios accepting the Tome may have its validity, after all.

2- No way that such a weak piece of document could be taken as a pillar of faith. Champions of Faith don't invite heresies to creep through their writings, and specially if it supposed to be the definitive piece of teaching on an issue.

3- I am not accusing EO of being Nestorian, they say and I believe them that they interpret the Tome in an orthodox way, but we can definitly understand why such a Nestorian piece of writing was refused and totally rejected by the OO and by our blessed and Holy Pope St.Discorous, who the heavy burden of fighting Nestorians and other heresies fell on his shoulders after the departure of the Pillar of Faith , St. Cyril and the change in Antoich and Rome.

4- Accepting the Tome will never happen on the OO side, and if it is a condition from the side of EO, the union will fail. We don't compromise on faith related issues.

5- Was Leo sound in his theology ? Very questionable because of his wording in the Tome and because of his relation to Theodret.

Peace,
Stavro
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,148



« Reply #54 on: February 12, 2004, 07:30:54 PM »

Leo :
The disagreement with Leo is about his teachings:

1- The Tome: Very Nestorian in Language
2- Primacy teachings : Not the place to discuss it here, but he is the founder of the Primacy teachings
3- Relation with Theodret:
- Theodret was a heretic as evident by his attacks against the Twelve Chapters of St.Cyril, and these attacks were elevated after the deaprture of the Pillar of Faith St.Cyril. The Synod in Chalcedon, except Leo and his delegates to Chalcedon, condemned him.
- He was allowed to sit in the council and be an active part and render decision on the theological matters, after he was given -miracleously- a chance to repent. His name appears in the minutes among those who approved that Tome of Leo was OK. Here we are faced with a clear Heretic, supported by Leo, taking part in theological decisions.
- Leo insisted upon having the Heretic Theodret as a member of the Council, before the council began. At that time, this Heretic rejected The Twelve Chapters, Ephesus I, the anathema of Nestorius, the reconciliation between Alexandria and Antoich. So he is both condemned by Ephesus I and Ephesus II which was not yet annulled by Leo.  

I wonder how can anybody claim that St. Discorous was wrong in excommunicating Leo after his support of an heretic ? Can Leo be regarded as an Orthodox if he supported such vigouros enemy of Cyril ?

Peace,
Stavro

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,148



« Reply #55 on: February 12, 2004, 07:46:16 PM »

Chalcedon:
Note that it didn't hold anything against the OO, theologically.

The theological problems with Chalcedon from OO point of view are:
1- Accepting the Tome of Leo and not trying to even change its wording to be more definitive in fighting off the Nestorian heresy.
2- The Question of the Three Chapters, which were realized to be blasphemy by the OO and contributed to the refusal of OO to accept the Council. The question which has to be dealt with : If the Chalcedonian took about a century to realize that the Three CHapters were blasphemy, how can they accept this council themselves ? In between, were they heretics ?

Canonically:
1- Having a heretic sitting in the council and render decisions like Theodret is a joke.
2- Excommunicating Pope St. Discorous without giving him a chance to defend himself and although he was under house arrest. Should we pretend that the council did not know this, or that Leo did not know such a fact, being the friend of the Emperor and Theodret.

Peace,
Stavro
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,148



« Reply #56 on: February 12, 2004, 08:06:36 PM »

Post Chalcedon:

This is also a point often neglected , intentionally or not, by the Chalcedonians. They undermine the horror of the crimes and mass murders committed by the Chalcedonians against the non-chalcedonians. I will speak about the Coptic Church and the Persecution it was subjected too by the Chalcedonians and their political alliances (Emperors).
1- Disposal of the Alexandrian Popes at numerous incidents and having a Puppet Chalcedonian Bishop reporting to the Popes of Con. and ROme and to the Emperor , at the same time. Leo is the inventor of such "tradition".
These Puppet Bishops were also the rulers of Egypt, and they manifested this authority by wearing the full military clothes on the Bishop's attire during liturgies.
2- Killing of millions of Copts . Nobody paid any attention to this fact or even comes out loud and condemns it, and I hope it is not because of racial prejudice. I wonder whether the EO Church were negligent of this fact, or did they endorse it ? If not, why didn't they do anything about it, at least condemn it ? Killing is not a theological issue to be debated.

That leads us to the question of Saints:
I wonder why is it important to be orthodox to confess that Leo is a saint ? If you want to make him one, OO will not object, but I think it is clear why OO will never ever think of putting him in such a high regard.  
Speaking about saints, what about Justianian !! It raises questions about the process of venerating saints by the EO. He killed millions of OO. Is he a "must-have saint" also ?

Peace,
Stavro
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #57 on: February 12, 2004, 09:12:35 PM »

Stavro -

Thank you for taking the time to post your perspective.

I disagree, but thanks anyway.

It seems to me your posts - if typical of OO opinion - make it very clear that we are very far from any kind of union and that at present such a union would be highly undesirable.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #58 on: February 13, 2004, 02:43:43 AM »

Stavro -

Thank you for taking the time to post your perspective.

I disagree, but thanks anyway.

It seems to me your posts - if typical of OO opinion - make it very clear that we are very far from any kind of union and that at present such a union would be highly undesirable.

Although I will try to make a specific response to Stavro's posts by tonight, I am afraid I must agree with Linus7. Other than a Christological agreement, it does seem as if each side here sees a "poison pill"  required of it by the other.
Everything I see in Stavro's posts seems discussed before. When I started this thread as, at first an OO/EO-thing, I was looking for other differences such as, for example, possible CALENDAR differences that lurk as future impediments.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,148



« Reply #59 on: February 13, 2004, 05:47:28 PM »

Quote
Although I will try to make a specific response to Stavro's posts by tonight, I am afraid I must agree with Linus7. Other than a Christological agreement, it does seem as if each side here sees a "poison pill"  required of it by the other.Everything I see in Stavro's posts seems discussed before. When I started this thread as, at first an OO/EO-thing, I was looking for other differences such as, for example, possible CALENDAR differences that lurk as future impediments.
I see that my posts brought the opposite effect of what I intended. I wanted to make clear that many OO will not accept Chalcedon and the issues related to it for the reasons I mentioned, and we don't see it as an issue necessary for unity as long as we confess the same faith. Again, these are personal views and I believe they are common among OO, but not necessarily the only perspective.  

What is common among OO also is a desire for unity, a unity between equals.

Sorry Demetri for deviating from the original subject. Forgive me.

Peace,
Stavro
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #60 on: February 16, 2004, 03:53:47 PM »

Quote
Stavro:
Regarding the union: To my understanding, that the OO and EO are past the theological part which caused the schism in Chalcedon. In fact, the excommunication of St. Discorous was due to canonical (from Calcedonian side of course) and not theological issues. The EO cleared their position regarding the way they understand the question of the Two Natures and proved they are non-Nestorian and never were.The OO clarified their position regarding the monophysite heresy and showed that they never did adopt such heresy, and a common declaration of faith was put together.

This seems an accurate description of the agreements to date.

Quote
Stavro:
So raising up doubts about the belief of the OO regarding theological matters relating to Chalcedon would lead to questioning the ability of EO leaders, Patriarchs and Bishops, to point out a heresy in the OO belief system. It is either they don't know or, with all due respect, conspiring against the EO "faith" for false union.

I do defer judgment to my bishops and trust them to faithfully pursue this dialogue.

Quote
Stavro:
Regarding Councils 5-7 from OO point of view:
We don't have issues with dogmas clarified in these councils (I think this is the official OO position). We can look at them as sources as long as they interpreted in an orthodox way by the EO.
But we will not sign on them because:
1- Our approval was not required in the first place to make these councils valid. Why should we sign now ?
2- These councils fought heresies that crept into the Chalcedonian church and they were never an issue in our Church. They are irrelevant to us.
Suppose for the sake of argument that the EO had a council to discuss the gender of the angels, for example, and they condemned every "heretic" who said that they are men. Are we required to sign on those councils ?
3- The position the EO church takes on this issues is a position of enforcing primacy on the OO and acting as the "Orthodox" part who puts conditions to accept the "prodigals", which is not the case. A union is between equals only.
4- Would the EO agree to sign on the councils of the RC after 1054 a.d. in order to have a union ? The same assumptions and conditions apply in both cases.
5- Would the EO sign on local meeting of the OO church, like Adessa Baba in 1965 for example and every other Holy Synod decision of the Coptic Church, for example ? We don't ask EO to do so, and we ask the same from them. Anything else is hypocrisy.

1) Without being quickly dismissive here, every time I see words to the effect of “We don’t have a problem with these councils, but as we were not involved in the heresies, why should we have to accept councils correcting them” I am taken with the logic until I see that this in effect is saying: “We cannot accept that which we do NOT DISAGREE with”.

2) Specific to the Seventh Council, I must take issue with you. The first rumblings of the iconoclasts began in the Church of Armenia reaching a culmination with the Paulican sect. From there it spread to the Church of Constantinople. While it is true that the Armenians dealt with the heresy alone without involving the other “Oriental” churches, the heresy was there. With the aid of the then-Orthodox Pope of Rome, the Seventh Council vanquished the heresy in the Chalcedonian, and specifically Constantinople, churches.

3) Indeed, I do not see this as a “primacy”-thing. Any re-union based on anything less than 100% concurrence is no union at all. We have a model of an “unia” in the west to show that danger.

4 and 5) Just so! That is exactly what would be required of the EOs and the RCs alike. Failing this - no union. Indeed the EO’s have many councils (beginning with the universally accepted ‘provisionally’ named 8th and 9th) beyond the SEVEN. Many are in response to some Latin new holdings such as use of unleavened bread or the Gregorian Calendar with new paschalion. It is incumbent on both the OO’s and EO’s to fully examine ALL councils.


Demetri

{Continued}
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #61 on: February 16, 2004, 03:56:03 PM »

Quote
Stavro:
Tome of LEO:
We understand that the EO are not nestorian, and that they interpret the Tome in an orthodox mannerGǪ.

I will quote you no further here. The above statement of yours should be enough unless one is looking for reasons not to re-unite.

Quote
Stavro:
Chalcedon:
Note that it didn't hold anything against the OO, theologically.

The theological problems with Chalcedon from OO point of view are:
1- Accepting the Tome of Leo and not trying to even change its wording to be more definitive in fighting off the Nestorian heresy.
2- The Question of the Three Chapters, which were realized to be blasphemy by the OO and contributed to the refusal of OO to accept the Council. The question which has to be dealt with : If the Chalcedonian took about a century to realize that the Three CHapters were blasphemy, how can they accept this council themselves ? In between, were they heretics ?

Precisely why all acceptance of all Seven Councils, today en-mass versus separately is asked. Indeed, while 5 and 6 dealt with other heresies as well, I do believe making the 4th palpable for the OO’s was an intent.

Quote
Canonically:
1- Having a heretic sitting in the council and render decisions like Theodret is a joke.
2- Excommunicating Pope St. Discorous without giving him a chance to defend himself and although he was under house arrest. Should we pretend that the council did not know this, or that Leo did not know such a fact, being the friend of the Emperor and Theodret.
I honestly think this is your only real issue, my new friend, Stavro. I’ll not bring up similar issues from our side as neither argument can be settled by anything less than mutual forgiveness.

Quote
This is also a point often neglected , intentionally or not, by the Chalcedonians. They undermine the horror of the crimes and mass murders committed by the Chalcedonians against the non-chalcedonians. I will speak about the Coptic Church and the Persecution it was subjected too by the Chalcedonians and their political alliances (Emperors).
1- Disposal of the Alexandrian Popes at numerous incidents and having a Puppet Chalcedonian Bishop reporting to the Popes of Con. and ROme and to the Emperor , at the same time. Leo is the inventor of such "tradition".
These Puppet Bishops were also the rulers of Egypt, and they manifested this authority by wearing the full military clothes on the Bishop's attire during liturgies.
2- Killing of millions of Copts . Nobody paid any attention to this fact or even comes out loud and condemns it, and I hope it is not because of racial prejudice. I wonder whether the EO Church were negligent of this fact, or did they endorse it ? If not, why didn't they do anything about it, at least condemn it ? Killing is not a theological issue to be debated.

You seem to accuse the Church for the sins of men. I’ve no immediate answer and agree it’s not debatable, except that “millions” stretches credulity to me. Not that that matters, however. Even “one” on either side should be condemned.


Demetri

{continued}
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #62 on: February 16, 2004, 03:59:51 PM »

Quote
That leads us to the question of Saints:
I wonder why is it important to be orthodox to confess that Leo is a saint ? If you want to make him one, OO will not object, but I think it is clear why OO will never ever think of putting him in such a high regard.

But you’ve yet to convince me that he is not a saint.

Quote
Speaking about saints, what about Justianian !! It raises questions about the process of venerating saints by the EO. He killed millions of OO. Is he a "must-have saint" also ?

Justinian is not venerated as a saint for persecuting Jacobites and Copts, but for recovering in large part the empire in the west and freeing the See of Rome from the Arian Visigoths and, foremost, for his vast support of the Byzantine Social Welfare System of hospitals, poor-houses and churches. That as a man he could and did sin I do not doubt.

Apparently Linus7 is correct; much divides us yet. I do find it strange, however, that when I sit down with my Coptic friends here and converse over a cup of coffee, our dialogue sounds nothing like these exchanges.

This is probably my last post in this thread. Starvo and Nicholas are welcomed to continue off- forum via PM.

Peace to you as well, Stavro

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,148



« Reply #63 on: February 17, 2004, 06:19:54 PM »

Dear Demetri,
Peace,
I thank you for your post and for clarifying many issues in you reply.

I think the differences remain, mainly in the councils and saints, and I will not debate it as it will be just rephrasing of previous arguments from both sides and out of respect for your request.

However, I think with your posts, the debate ended on a positive note, from such statements:
Quote
Demetri commenting on theology: I will quote you no further here. The above statement of yours should be enough unless one is looking for reasons not to re-unite.
Strongly agree.
Quote
Demetri commenting on my opinion about Fourth Council:I will not bring up similar issues from our side as neither argument can be settled by anything less than mutual forgiveness.
I agree and you are right, we sometimes get tangled in a discussion on who is right and who got it wrong, but we forget the basic christian values like forgiveness, love,.... . We agree on theology, there are no heresies or false dogmas on both sides, so the union should be realized rapidly, I hope.

Also,
Quote
Demetri:I do find it strange, however, that when I sit down with my Coptic friends here and converse over a cup of coffee, our dialogue sounds nothing like these exchanges.
The dialogue took a heated turn, and I am sorry if my posts contributed to that. I really wanted to make clear why OO have issues with the councils and saints.
We don't think it should prevent the union anyways.
As for your coptic friends, I am glad that you are aquainted with some brothers  Smiley and you have a rather positive impression about them.
The Coptic Church has made positive steps towards the union, and clarified the issue that the EO have a sound theology. Here in the US, in places where there is no OO churches, Copts are allowed to take communion in the EO parishes, if they allow. Most of them (EO) are very inviting and we appreciate this very much.

I hope we see a full union soon.
Peace,
Stavro


Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Tags: Troll Chalcedon Chalcedon polemics cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.085 seconds with 45 queries.