OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 12:30:35 PM *
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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Diptychs... Just Curious...  (Read 1982 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 4,994



« on: April 26, 2011, 03:17:35 PM »

Do the Oriental Orthodox have diptychs? I would think that the Oriental Church does, but I tried to look for it and couldn't find it.

Also, what would the diptychs of a unified Orthodox Church look like? I would assume it'd be similar to the current EO diptychs, but I didn't know where Armenia, Ethiopia, Eritria & India would be... Where might they be placed in a unified Church?
Logged
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2011, 03:24:32 PM »

I really look forward to hearing some OOs speak about this.

As far as placement, I would assume Armenia would be pretty far up there. They Christianized before Rome. I imagine that Ethiopia and India would be middle-of-the-road (India maybe a little lower, and Ethiopia would probably be close to Russia, given its long history and large number of adherents). I imagine that Eriteria would be fairly low, as they're quite new to being autocephalous. Then again, they have a long history of Orthodoxy...that might allow them to skip up a bit more.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 03:25:55 PM by Benjamin the Red » Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2011, 03:28:53 PM »

Bi-'Khristos af-donf!
Do the Oriental Orthodox have diptychs? I would think that the Oriental Church does, but I tried to look for it and couldn't find it.

Also, what would the diptychs of a unified Orthodox Church look like? I would assume it'd be similar to the current EO diptychs, but I didn't know where Armenia, Ethiopia, Eritria & India would be... Where might they be placed in a unified Church?
IIRC, the Coptic DL has a reference to Antioch.  I seem to remember some reference to Constantinople, but I can't recall the particulars.  The reference to Antioch is somewhat more like our "Among the First, remember our metropolitan...." than the diptychs.  Ethiopia wouldn't be mentioned, as Alexandria is some sense thinks of it as still under its purview (that may have changed recently, but I haven't noticed).  Old Rome and New Rome (and Cyprus) are out for obvious reasons, Jerusalem has no OO Patriarchate to speak of (the Syriac and Armenians have something more like the Latin Patriarchate each, i.e. not a local based autocephalous Church).  India is seen as the Syriac equivalent of the Copts Ethiopia (and Eriterea).  Armenia is just a vague recollection off in the distance (its status among the other autocephalous Churches wasn't spelled out by Chalcedon).

As for unified diptychs, Chambesy showed we can't get the act together with those we got.  IMHO Armenia should come before Georgia, being a Mother Church of sorts and the first Christian nation.  In fact, we would have a problem as all the OO Churches predate most of the EO Churches except the Pentarchy and Cyprus.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 4,994



« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2011, 03:40:57 PM »

Bi-'Khristos af-donf!
Do the Oriental Orthodox have diptychs? I would think that the Oriental Church does, but I tried to look for it and couldn't find it.

Also, what would the diptychs of a unified Orthodox Church look like? I would assume it'd be similar to the current EO diptychs, but I didn't know where Armenia, Ethiopia, Eritria & India would be... Where might they be placed in a unified Church?
IIRC, the Coptic DL has a reference to Antioch.  I seem to remember some reference to Constantinople, but I can't recall the particulars.  The reference to Antioch is somewhat more like our "Among the First, remember our metropolitan...." than the diptychs.  Ethiopia wouldn't be mentioned, as Alexandria is some sense thinks of it as still under its purview (that may have changed recently, but I haven't noticed).  Old Rome and New Rome (and Cyprus) are out for obvious reasons, Jerusalem has no OO Patriarchate to speak of (the Syriac and Armenians have something more like the Latin Patriarchate each, i.e. not a local based autocephalous Church).  India is seen as the Syriac equivalent of the Copts Ethiopia (and Eriterea).  Armenia is just a vague recollection off in the distance (its status among the other autocephalous Churches wasn't spelled out by Chalcedon).

As for unified diptychs, Chambesy showed we can't get the act together with those we got.  IMHO Armenia should come before Georgia, being a Mother Church of sorts and the first Christian nation.  In fact, we would have a problem as all the OO Churches predate most of the EO Churches except the Pentarchy and Cyprus.

I definitely think Armenia should be up there, in my opinion it should be 1 above Georgia. I know that might cause issue with Georgia, but in all honesty, Armenia was pretty significant.
I would argue that the Coptic Church should be unified with our Church of Alexandria, and that the Syriac Church should be unified with our Antiochian Church. (this should be joint, not a submission of course)
That would pretty much leave the Ethiopians, Eritreans, and Indians...
Ethiopia should (in my opinion) possibly be above Serbia (and below Georgia), because of it's significance to Christianity, as well as it's Old Testament importance.
The Indian Church could be located with Cyprus & Greece, but I'm not sure where exactly.
The Eritrean Church could maybe be with Albania & the Czech Lands (and since I'm OCA, then the OCA).

Also ialmisry, I know, Chambesy is kind of sad, but here's hoping it gets resolved "soon" and cooler heads (and humility) prevails...
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 03:48:33 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
mabsoota
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 2,685


Kyrie eleison


« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2011, 03:46:58 PM »

err, are dyptichses (what's the plural?!) where you argue about which church you remember first?
we don't argue about it as far as i know.
in the coptic church we have special arrangements to remember the syriac orthodox patriarch and the eritrean patriarch, and i'm sure it will spread to other churches eventually.
in fact many churches don't do this bit unless there is a bishop there. we remember 'all orthodox hegumens, priests and deacons' and us ordinary copts (i.e. not part of the synod) take this to be EO and OO churches. i don't know if the synod agrees with that, i don't currently have any friends in it. working on that!  Wink
ok, maybe it's a few decades off before i actually meet anyone that senior...

i would like to take this opportunity to say, can you please ALL pray for the patriarch of eritrea 'abune antonius' who was un-canonically deposed by the state in 2005 and has only been seen in public one or twice since then.
his 'crime' is that he didn't think it was the president's job to appoint bishops.
thousands of Christians of all denominations are suffering terribly in eritrea for their faith.
if i am allowed too, i will post a link.
this is NOT a political problem, this is a state appointing bishops in an orthodox church, and generally arresting and torturing Christians generally and should be strongly condemned.
for those in the uk there is a prayer meeting (open air) in london on 26th may - send me a personal message for more details.
sorry for derailing the thread - i'll open another if you like...
Logged
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 4,994



« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2011, 03:50:37 PM »

How about this?

Orthodox Church of Constantinople*
Orthodox Church of Alexandria**
Orthodox Church of Antioch**
Orthodox Church of Jerusalem
Orthodox Church of Russia
Orthodox Church of Armenia
Orthodox Church of Georgia
Orthodox Church of Ethiopia*
Orthodox Church of Serbia
Orthodox Church of Romania
Orthodox Church of Bulgaria
Orthodox Church of India*
Orthodox Church of Cyprus
Orthodox Church of Greece
Orthodox Church of Poland
Orthodox Church of Albania
Orthodox Church of Eritrea*
Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands & Slovakia
Orthodox Church of America (had to Wink)

*Name changed for the sake of uniformity and conformity. In my opinion, in a EO/OO unification scenario, there wouldn't really need to be anymore "clarification" with names, all can call themselves "Orthodox".
**These Churches would be a unification of the local EO & OO Churches.

And then, in maybe 500-1000 years, if an absolute miracle happens and the Roman Church performs a great metanoia, and (also by some miracle) if the Anglican communion is joined with the Orthodox, then the Church of Rome would be first, and the Church of England could be 16th/17th on the list.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 04:00:13 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2011, 05:33:31 PM »

There is one significant factor to consider for imagining the diptychs of a united church: is this taken to be a bilateral union, or one party rejoining the other that is the Church?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
CoptoGeek
of Alexandria, the Christ-loving City
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,452



« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2011, 05:34:25 PM »

How about this?

Orthodox Church of Constantinople*
Orthodox Church of Alexandria**
Orthodox Church of Antioch**
Orthodox Church of Jerusalem
Orthodox Church of Russia
Orthodox Church of Armenia
Orthodox Church of Georgia
Orthodox Church of Ethiopia*
Orthodox Church of Serbia
Orthodox Church of Romania
Orthodox Church of Bulgaria
Orthodox Church of India*
Orthodox Church of Cyprus
Orthodox Church of Greece
Orthodox Church of Poland
Orthodox Church of Albania
Orthodox Church of Eritrea*
Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands & Slovakia
Orthodox Church of America (had to Wink)

*Name changed for the sake of uniformity and conformity. In my opinion, in a EO/OO unification scenario, there wouldn't really need to be anymore "clarification" with names, all can call themselves "Orthodox".
**These Churches would be a unification of the local EO & OO Churches.

And then, in maybe 500-1000 years, if an absolute miracle happens and the Roman Church performs a great metanoia, and (also by some miracle) if the Anglican communion is joined with the Orthodox, then the Church of Rome would be first, and the Church of England could be 16th/17th on the list.

Very nice! May that day come when the reading the diptychs takes all day!

From every tribe, from every nation...
Logged

"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 4,994



« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2011, 05:50:10 PM »

There is one significant factor to consider for imagining the diptychs of a united church: is this taken to be a bilateral union, or one party rejoining the other that is the Church?

I'm taking it to be a bilateral reunion... And in this situation, I'm kind of imagining that the reunion would take a while and isn't the kind we are necessarily thinking of. I think reunion will come with a gradual seaming back together through years of inter-cooperation, dialogue, theological discussions, uniformity in faith... This would be followed by inter-communion and con-celebrations and then eventually a formal declaration of a reunion that is already in-place.
(I'm thinking of it in a similar fashion to the way Saints are recognized)

In such a case, I believe the Bishops should be a bit reserved at first, and should be in contact with one another so they can be aware of diversions in faith. If no such divisions exist, I don't believe reunion would come immediately, at least formally.

To me, I think of it in a similar manner to the way someone is received into the Church. At a point in time, one may be a different faith entirely. But gradually they come closer and closer to Orthodoxy. They are "stiched" into the Church, and are formally received with the sacraments of Baptism and/or Chrismation and/or Confession.
Baptism (in my opinion) is an absolute official declaration. But there are some Churches that practice proper, canonical baptism, so a second baptism isn't needed. So Chrismation/Confession would be used to receive the person.

I also believe that there are some who are "invisibly" members of the Church, and won't be revealed until the end. Some of these people may not be baptized Orthodox Christians. But somehow, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, they've been weaved into his Holy Church.

I think this is currently happening with the EO & OO... While I believe the EO Church to be the one true Church, I believe that the tear between us is being gradually sewn back together by the Holy Spirit. That being the case, I think reunion will come before an official declaration.

I also don't think this is unheard of. In fact, this is the way the EO/OO schism occurred and the Rome/EO schism occurred. You had a gradual ripping apart, and then a formal recognition (or several) of a schism that was already present.
So too, we will have a gradual weaving together, and then a formal recognition of a reunion that has already occurred. (by the grace of the Holy Spirit)

But again, this is my personal opinion and how I'm looking at these things.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 05:51:20 PM by 88Devin12 » Logged
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 4,994



« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2011, 06:34:21 PM »

Can't edit above now but... Please keep in mind that is a personal theological opinion and it has some problems that I just now recognized (but it's too late to edit the post) please forgive me If it is in any serious error
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2011, 06:41:37 PM »

err, are dyptichses (what's the plural?!) where you argue about which church you remember first?

When the First Hierarch of an EO autocephalous Church (Patriarch, Metropolitan, etc) serves liturgy, at the Great Entrance he commemorates the heads of all the other autocephalous Churches. That list of whom the Hierarch commemorates is a Church's 'diptychs' and represents a list of all the other local churches that this local church formally recognizes as part of the same Church/Communion (this is a chain/web--when a priest serves, he commemorates his bishop, when his bishop serves he commemorates his Patriarch, etc, and then the Patriarch commemorates all the other First Hierarchs).

We do occasionally argue about the order (a practice going back to the 1st Ecumenical Council), but that is arguing about the diptychs, not the diptychs themselves. So the question is do the OO have any point in the liturgy where the Patriarch of Alexandra, for example, formally references, by name, the heads of the other OO Churches?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 06:42:50 PM by witega » Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #11 on: April 26, 2011, 07:04:44 PM »

There is one significant factor to consider for imagining the diptychs of a united church: is this taken to be a bilateral union, or one party rejoining the other that is the Church?

I'm taking it to be a bilateral reunion... And in this situation, I'm kind of imagining that the reunion would take a while and isn't the kind we are necessarily thinking of. I think reunion will come with a gradual seaming back together through years of inter-cooperation, dialogue, theological discussions, uniformity in faith... This would be followed by inter-communion and con-celebrations and then eventually a formal declaration of a reunion that is already in-place.
(I'm thinking of it in a similar fashion to the way Saints are recognized)

In such a case, I believe the Bishops should be a bit reserved at first, and should be in contact with one another so they can be aware of diversions in faith. If no such divisions exist, I don't believe reunion would come immediately, at least formally.

To me, I think of it in a similar manner to the way someone is received into the Church. At a point in time, one may be a different faith entirely. But gradually they come closer and closer to Orthodoxy. They are "stiched" into the Church, and are formally received with the sacraments of Baptism and/or Chrismation and/or Confession.
Baptism (in my opinion) is an absolute official declaration. But there are some Churches that practice proper, canonical baptism, so a second baptism isn't needed. So Chrismation/Confession would be used to receive the person.

I also believe that there are some who are "invisibly" members of the Church, and won't be revealed until the end. Some of these people may not be baptized Orthodox Christians. But somehow, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, they've been weaved into his Holy Church.

I think this is currently happening with the EO & OO... While I believe the EO Church to be the one true Church, I believe that the tear between us is being gradually sewn back together by the Holy Spirit. That being the case, I think reunion will come before an official declaration.

I also don't think this is unheard of. In fact, this is the way the EO/OO schism occurred and the Rome/EO schism occurred. You had a gradual ripping apart, and then a formal recognition (or several) of a schism that was already present.
So too, we will have a gradual weaving together, and then a formal recognition of a reunion that has already occurred. (by the grace of the Holy Spirit)

But again, this is my personal opinion and how I'm looking at these things.

EDIT: Devin, didn't see your second post, therefore I removed my critique of what you said.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 07:05:47 PM by CBGardner » Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #12 on: April 26, 2011, 07:10:50 PM »

How about this?

Orthodox Church of Constantinople*
Orthodox Church of Alexandria**
Orthodox Church of Antioch**
Orthodox Church of Jerusalem
Orthodox Church of Russia
Orthodox Church of Armenia
Orthodox Church of Georgia
Orthodox Church of Ethiopia*
Orthodox Church of Serbia
Orthodox Church of Romania
Orthodox Church of Bulgaria
Orthodox Church of India*
Orthodox Church of Cyprus
Orthodox Church of Greece
Orthodox Church of Poland
Orthodox Church of Albania
Orthodox Church of Eritrea*
Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands & Slovakia
Orthodox Church of America (had to Wink)

*Name changed for the sake of uniformity and conformity. In my opinion, in a EO/OO unification scenario, there wouldn't really need to be anymore "clarification" with names, all can call themselves "Orthodox".
**These Churches would be a unification of the local EO & OO Churches.

And then, in maybe 500-1000 years, if an absolute miracle happens and the Roman Church performs a great metanoia, and (also by some miracle) if the Anglican communion is joined with the Orthodox, then the Church of Rome would be first, and the Church of England could be 16th/17th on the list.

Nice. I agree with most of that. However, I would place Ethiopia a little higher, either immediately above or below Russia. They have a long history and a great number of adherents. Ethiopia has been a Christian nation almost as long as Christianity has been around.

Further, I agree with Rome resuming its place as first-among-equals if she were to repent, but the Church of England is quite ancient, I wouldn't put it at the end. The final British Mission of St. Anselm, which is the Christian Mission that stuck, would chronologically place it about equal with Russia. Number of adherents would pull it down, though. I would place it about 2/3 of the way down the list. Perhaps between Cyprus and Greece.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,892


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #13 on: April 27, 2011, 12:46:52 AM »

A post calling the Oriental Orthodox "filthy heretics," as well as another post quoting it, was split off and put here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35590.msg560534.html#msg560534

Chtets Ioann,

You are perfectly free to say you think we are not Orthodox.  You are also free to not like us.  You are, however, required to be polite about it when posting in the public forums of OCnet.

Pursuant to forum rules, polemics go into the private forum.  There you can call us what you want.  If you don't have access to the private forum, but you want to get in there, you may pm Fr. Chris to ask for admission.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 01:23:15 AM by Salpy » Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,959


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #14 on: April 27, 2011, 01:37:17 AM »

Right now, the Coptic Church, after of course commemorating our own Coptic Pope, commemorates the "brothers in Apostolic service," the Patriarch of Antioch, Mar Ignatius Zaka Iwas, the Patriarch of Ethiopia, Abune Paulos (recently added, after the Armenian Patriarch's guided efforts in uniting the Coptic/Ethiopian patriarchs), and the Patriarch of Eritrea, Abune Antonios (in that order).  I've read protocols of the Ethiopian and Eritrean churches of their autocephaly status as well as a mutual ordination of our respective patriarchs (i.e. they Ethiopians and Eritreans would join the Coptic bishops in the laying of hands on a new Coptic Pope and vice versa).  As for the Syrian Patriarch, we just seem to have very ancient close relationships with them, sometimes even having Syrians who would become Coptic Popes.  We even adopted Jonah's Fast from the Syrian Church.

I don't know why we haven't added Armenia to the list.  But we are in communion with them unequivocally.  India also has been a thorn of controversy mostly for the Syrians.  Besides obviously the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, most Coptic bishops, if not all (but one who I still hold a great deal of grudge with to this day) also allow communion with the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church.  Nevertheless, neither any Indian Catholicoses nor the Armenian Catholicos are in the diptych.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 4,994



« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2011, 01:56:37 AM »

There is one significant factor to consider for imagining the diptychs of a united church: is this taken to be a bilateral union, or one party rejoining the other that is the Church?

I'm taking it to be a bilateral reunion... And in this situation, I'm kind of imagining that the reunion would take a while and isn't the kind we are necessarily thinking of. I think reunion will come with a gradual seaming back together through years of inter-cooperation, dialogue, theological discussions, uniformity in faith... This would be followed by inter-communion and con-celebrations and then eventually a formal declaration of a reunion that is already in-place.
(I'm thinking of it in a similar fashion to the way Saints are recognized)

In such a case, I believe the Bishops should be a bit reserved at first, and should be in contact with one another so they can be aware of diversions in faith. If no such divisions exist, I don't believe reunion would come immediately, at least formally.

To me, I think of it in a similar manner to the way someone is received into the Church. At a point in time, one may be a different faith entirely. But gradually they come closer and closer to Orthodoxy. They are "stiched" into the Church, and are formally received with the sacraments of Baptism and/or Chrismation and/or Confession.
Baptism (in my opinion) is an absolute official declaration. But there are some Churches that practice proper, canonical baptism, so a second baptism isn't needed. So Chrismation/Confession would be used to receive the person.

I also believe that there are some who are "invisibly" members of the Church, and won't be revealed until the end. Some of these people may not be baptized Orthodox Christians. But somehow, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, they've been weaved into his Holy Church.

I think this is currently happening with the EO & OO... While I believe the EO Church to be the one true Church, I believe that the tear between us is being gradually sewn back together by the Holy Spirit. That being the case, I think reunion will come before an official declaration.

I also don't think this is unheard of. In fact, this is the way the EO/OO schism occurred and the Rome/EO schism occurred. You had a gradual ripping apart, and then a formal recognition (or several) of a schism that was already present.
So too, we will have a gradual weaving together, and then a formal recognition of a reunion that has already occurred. (by the grace of the Holy Spirit)

But again, this is my personal opinion and how I'm looking at these things.

EDIT: Devin, didn't see your second post, therefore I removed my critique of what you said.

Yeah, sorry about that, I had already been on my way home (where, here in Greece, I have no email) so I had about 30 minutes to think about it, and realized I had committed some errors.

I would say that while I do honestly believe that a schism is repaired through the Holy Spirit, I would (now that I realize I was wrong) affirm that inter-communion is wrong unless there is a formal recognition of reunion. The same can be said for con-celebrations with Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox.

I personally believe that groups such as the Old Calendarists (and the Oriental Orthodox), are indeed Orthodox and keep the Orthodox faith intact. I still affirm that they are separated from the Church and cannot receive communion, and I cannot go to communion in their Churches. This doesn't mean I don't believe that they aren't a part of the heavenly church. But one has to be a member of Christ's earthly church in order to receive her mysteries.

I do believe there is a "seaming together" through the Holy Spirit that occurs before there is official recognition. But there must still be official recognition in order for there to be proper inter-communion and con-celebrations.

I think we also shouldn't be hasty about reunion. That is why I think the EO & OO are much closer to reunion than ever. Neither is really hasty about attaining reunion and both officially still have reservations. This is in contrast to the EO & RCC where the RCC would favor immediate reunion, as long as we submit to the Pope.

If there is consistency between the beliefs in both sides, and if both are essentially Orthodox (but aren't officially in union) then I don't think there needs to be any "submission" for either side.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,959


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #16 on: April 27, 2011, 01:58:58 AM »

There is one significant factor to consider for imagining the diptychs of a united church: is this taken to be a bilateral union, or one party rejoining the other that is the Church?

I'm taking it to be a bilateral reunion... And in this situation, I'm kind of imagining that the reunion would take a while and isn't the kind we are necessarily thinking of. I think reunion will come with a gradual seaming back together through years of inter-cooperation, dialogue, theological discussions, uniformity in faith... This would be followed by inter-communion and con-celebrations and then eventually a formal declaration of a reunion that is already in-place.
(I'm thinking of it in a similar fashion to the way Saints are recognized)

In such a case, I believe the Bishops should be a bit reserved at first, and should be in contact with one another so they can be aware of diversions in faith. If no such divisions exist, I don't believe reunion would come immediately, at least formally.

To me, I think of it in a similar manner to the way someone is received into the Church. At a point in time, one may be a different faith entirely. But gradually they come closer and closer to Orthodoxy. They are "stiched" into the Church, and are formally received with the sacraments of Baptism and/or Chrismation and/or Confession.
Baptism (in my opinion) is an absolute official declaration. But there are some Churches that practice proper, canonical baptism, so a second baptism isn't needed. So Chrismation/Confession would be used to receive the person.

I also believe that there are some who are "invisibly" members of the Church, and won't be revealed until the end. Some of these people may not be baptized Orthodox Christians. But somehow, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, they've been weaved into his Holy Church.

I think this is currently happening with the EO & OO... While I believe the EO Church to be the one true Church, I believe that the tear between us is being gradually sewn back together by the Holy Spirit. That being the case, I think reunion will come before an official declaration.

I also don't think this is unheard of. In fact, this is the way the EO/OO schism occurred and the Rome/EO schism occurred. You had a gradual ripping apart, and then a formal recognition (or several) of a schism that was already present.
So too, we will have a gradual weaving together, and then a formal recognition of a reunion that has already occurred. (by the grace of the Holy Spirit)

But again, this is my personal opinion and how I'm looking at these things.

EDIT: Devin, didn't see your second post, therefore I removed my critique of what you said.

Yeah, sorry about that, I had already been on my way home (where, here in Greece, I have no email) so I had about 30 minutes to think about it, and realized I had committed some errors.

I would say that while I do honestly believe that a schism is repaired through the Holy Spirit, I would (now that I realize I was wrong) affirm that inter-communion is wrong unless there is a formal recognition of reunion. The same can be said for con-celebrations with Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox.

I personally believe that groups such as the Old Calendarists (and the Oriental Orthodox), are indeed Orthodox and keep the Orthodox faith intact. I still affirm that they are separated from the Church and cannot receive communion, and I cannot go to communion in their Churches. This doesn't mean I don't believe that they aren't a part of the heavenly church. But one has to be a member of Christ's earthly church in order to receive her mysteries.

I do believe there is a "seaming together" through the Holy Spirit that occurs before there is official recognition. But there must still be official recognition in order for there to be proper inter-communion and con-celebrations.

I think we also shouldn't be hasty about reunion. That is why I think the EO & OO are much closer to reunion than ever. Neither is really hasty about attaining reunion and both officially still have reservations. This is in contrast to the EO & RCC where the RCC would favor immediate reunion, as long as we submit to the Pope.

If there is consistency between the beliefs in both sides, and if both are essentially Orthodox (but aren't officially in union) then I don't think there needs to be any "submission" for either side.

You have a lot more hope about this than I do right now.  I used to be just as optimistic.  All I can ask for, according to your will Oh Lord.

Don't get me wrong, I defend the Joint Commissions.  But something seems to be missing that's not ruffling enough feathers to make this a dire issue.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 02:02:21 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 4,994



« Reply #17 on: April 27, 2011, 02:01:28 AM »

How about this?

Orthodox Church of Constantinople*
Orthodox Church of Alexandria**
Orthodox Church of Antioch**
Orthodox Church of Jerusalem
Orthodox Church of Russia
Orthodox Church of Armenia
Orthodox Church of Georgia
Orthodox Church of Ethiopia*
Orthodox Church of Serbia
Orthodox Church of Romania
Orthodox Church of Bulgaria
Orthodox Church of India*
Orthodox Church of Cyprus
Orthodox Church of Greece
Orthodox Church of Poland
Orthodox Church of Albania
Orthodox Church of Eritrea*
Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands & Slovakia
Orthodox Church of America (had to Wink)

*Name changed for the sake of uniformity and conformity. In my opinion, in a EO/OO unification scenario, there wouldn't really need to be anymore "clarification" with names, all can call themselves "Orthodox".
**These Churches would be a unification of the local EO & OO Churches.

And then, in maybe 500-1000 years, if an absolute miracle happens and the Roman Church performs a great metanoia, and (also by some miracle) if the Anglican communion is joined with the Orthodox, then the Church of Rome would be first, and the Church of England could be 16th/17th on the list.

Nice. I agree with most of that. However, I would place Ethiopia a little higher, either immediately above or below Russia. They have a long history and a great number of adherents. Ethiopia has been a Christian nation almost as long as Christianity has been around.

Further, I agree with Rome resuming its place as first-among-equals if she were to repent, but the Church of England is quite ancient, I wouldn't put it at the end. The final British Mission of St. Anselm, which is the Christian Mission that stuck, would chronologically place it about equal with Russia. Number of adherents would pull it down, though. I would place it about 2/3 of the way down the list. Perhaps between Cyprus and Greece.

I agree about Ethiopia, I would probably place it right below Russia.

Also, I had forgotten about that, and was thinking about it last night and decided that before any miraculous union occurred where the CoE entered Orthodoxy, there would probably already be an established Orthodox Church in England, which eventually (in my opinion) should be placed higher up. If a miraculous union occurred, then the CoE would just join that Orthodox Church.
Logged
CBGardner
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 618


Ask w/ tears, seek w/ obedience, knock w/ patience


« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2011, 11:01:48 AM »

There is one significant factor to consider for imagining the diptychs of a united church: is this taken to be a bilateral union, or one party rejoining the other that is the Church?

I'm taking it to be a bilateral reunion... And in this situation, I'm kind of imagining that the reunion would take a while and isn't the kind we are necessarily thinking of. I think reunion will come with a gradual seaming back together through years of inter-cooperation, dialogue, theological discussions, uniformity in faith... This would be followed by inter-communion and con-celebrations and then eventually a formal declaration of a reunion that is already in-place.
(I'm thinking of it in a similar fashion to the way Saints are recognized)

In such a case, I believe the Bishops should be a bit reserved at first, and should be in contact with one another so they can be aware of diversions in faith. If no such divisions exist, I don't believe reunion would come immediately, at least formally.

To me, I think of it in a similar manner to the way someone is received into the Church. At a point in time, one may be a different faith entirely. But gradually they come closer and closer to Orthodoxy. They are "stiched" into the Church, and are formally received with the sacraments of Baptism and/or Chrismation and/or Confession.
Baptism (in my opinion) is an absolute official declaration. But there are some Churches that practice proper, canonical baptism, so a second baptism isn't needed. So Chrismation/Confession would be used to receive the person.

I also believe that there are some who are "invisibly" members of the Church, and won't be revealed until the end. Some of these people may not be baptized Orthodox Christians. But somehow, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, they've been weaved into his Holy Church.

I think this is currently happening with the EO & OO... While I believe the EO Church to be the one true Church, I believe that the tear between us is being gradually sewn back together by the Holy Spirit. That being the case, I think reunion will come before an official declaration.

I also don't think this is unheard of. In fact, this is the way the EO/OO schism occurred and the Rome/EO schism occurred. You had a gradual ripping apart, and then a formal recognition (or several) of a schism that was already present.
So too, we will have a gradual weaving together, and then a formal recognition of a reunion that has already occurred. (by the grace of the Holy Spirit)

But again, this is my personal opinion and how I'm looking at these things.

EDIT: Devin, didn't see your second post, therefore I removed my critique of what you said.

Yeah, sorry about that, I had already been on my way home (where, here in Greece, I have no email) so I had about 30 minutes to think about it, and realized I had committed some errors.

I would say that while I do honestly believe that a schism is repaired through the Holy Spirit, I would (now that I realize I was wrong) affirm that inter-communion is wrong unless there is a formal recognition of reunion. The same can be said for con-celebrations with Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox.

I personally believe that groups such as the Old Calendarists (and the Oriental Orthodox), are indeed Orthodox and keep the Orthodox faith intact. I still affirm that they are separated from the Church and cannot receive communion, and I cannot go to communion in their Churches. This doesn't mean I don't believe that they aren't a part of the heavenly church. But one has to be a member of Christ's earthly church in order to receive her mysteries.

I do believe there is a "seaming together" through the Holy Spirit that occurs before there is official recognition. But there must still be official recognition in order for there to be proper inter-communion and con-celebrations.

I think we also shouldn't be hasty about reunion. That is why I think the EO & OO are much closer to reunion than ever. Neither is really hasty about attaining reunion and both officially still have reservations. This is in contrast to the EO & RCC where the RCC would favor immediate reunion, as long as we submit to the Pope.

If there is consistency between the beliefs in both sides, and if both are essentially Orthodox (but aren't officially in union) then I don't think there needs to be any "submission" for either side.

You have a lot more hope about this than I do right now.  I used to be just as optimistic.  All I can ask for, according to your will Oh Lord.

Don't get me wrong, I defend the Joint Commissions.  But something seems to be missing that's not ruffling enough feathers to make this a dire issue.

Devin-  It's funny because that was exactly what I was going to comment on; communion before recognition. I agree with much of what you say.

Mina- I believe you're right on. As much as I'd like to be optimistic there doesn't seem to be a dire want of reunion between EO and OO. They seem content to operate alongside eachother but i hope this changes. But more than anything I agree with you when you say, according to your will oh Lord!
Logged

Authentic zeal is not directed towards anything but union in Christ, or against anything but our own fallenness.

"Beardliness is next to Godliness."- Asteriktos
88Devin12
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 4,994



« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2011, 11:31:05 AM »

There is one significant factor to consider for imagining the diptychs of a united church: is this taken to be a bilateral union, or one party rejoining the other that is the Church?

I'm taking it to be a bilateral reunion... And in this situation, I'm kind of imagining that the reunion would take a while and isn't the kind we are necessarily thinking of. I think reunion will come with a gradual seaming back together through years of inter-cooperation, dialogue, theological discussions, uniformity in faith... This would be followed by inter-communion and con-celebrations and then eventually a formal declaration of a reunion that is already in-place.
(I'm thinking of it in a similar fashion to the way Saints are recognized)

In such a case, I believe the Bishops should be a bit reserved at first, and should be in contact with one another so they can be aware of diversions in faith. If no such divisions exist, I don't believe reunion would come immediately, at least formally.

To me, I think of it in a similar manner to the way someone is received into the Church. At a point in time, one may be a different faith entirely. But gradually they come closer and closer to Orthodoxy. They are "stiched" into the Church, and are formally received with the sacraments of Baptism and/or Chrismation and/or Confession.
Baptism (in my opinion) is an absolute official declaration. But there are some Churches that practice proper, canonical baptism, so a second baptism isn't needed. So Chrismation/Confession would be used to receive the person.

I also believe that there are some who are "invisibly" members of the Church, and won't be revealed until the end. Some of these people may not be baptized Orthodox Christians. But somehow, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, they've been weaved into his Holy Church.

I think this is currently happening with the EO & OO... While I believe the EO Church to be the one true Church, I believe that the tear between us is being gradually sewn back together by the Holy Spirit. That being the case, I think reunion will come before an official declaration.

I also don't think this is unheard of. In fact, this is the way the EO/OO schism occurred and the Rome/EO schism occurred. You had a gradual ripping apart, and then a formal recognition (or several) of a schism that was already present.
So too, we will have a gradual weaving together, and then a formal recognition of a reunion that has already occurred. (by the grace of the Holy Spirit)

But again, this is my personal opinion and how I'm looking at these things.

EDIT: Devin, didn't see your second post, therefore I removed my critique of what you said.

Yeah, sorry about that, I had already been on my way home (where, here in Greece, I have no email) so I had about 30 minutes to think about it, and realized I had committed some errors.

I would say that while I do honestly believe that a schism is repaired through the Holy Spirit, I would (now that I realize I was wrong) affirm that inter-communion is wrong unless there is a formal recognition of reunion. The same can be said for con-celebrations with Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox.

I personally believe that groups such as the Old Calendarists (and the Oriental Orthodox), are indeed Orthodox and keep the Orthodox faith intact. I still affirm that they are separated from the Church and cannot receive communion, and I cannot go to communion in their Churches. This doesn't mean I don't believe that they aren't a part of the heavenly church. But one has to be a member of Christ's earthly church in order to receive her mysteries.

I do believe there is a "seaming together" through the Holy Spirit that occurs before there is official recognition. But there must still be official recognition in order for there to be proper inter-communion and con-celebrations.

I think we also shouldn't be hasty about reunion. That is why I think the EO & OO are much closer to reunion than ever. Neither is really hasty about attaining reunion and both officially still have reservations. This is in contrast to the EO & RCC where the RCC would favor immediate reunion, as long as we submit to the Pope.

If there is consistency between the beliefs in both sides, and if both are essentially Orthodox (but aren't officially in union) then I don't think there needs to be any "submission" for either side.

You have a lot more hope about this than I do right now.  I used to be just as optimistic.  All I can ask for, according to your will Oh Lord.

Don't get me wrong, I defend the Joint Commissions.  But something seems to be missing that's not ruffling enough feathers to make this a dire issue.

Devin-  It's funny because that was exactly what I was going to comment on; communion before recognition. I agree with much of what you say.

Mina- I believe you're right on. As much as I'd like to be optimistic there doesn't seem to be a dire want of reunion between EO and OO. They seem content to operate alongside eachother but i hope this changes. But more than anything I agree with you when you say, according to your will oh Lord!

What makes me really optimistic is when I've read writings by Oriental Monks, I don't see any dangerous differences between them and our theology. Not only that, but I've heard some monks, such as some of those in the Desert, refer to "Orthodox" and will often mean both Eastern & Oriental together.

I don't know how the monks on Mount Athos feel, or how the monks in the Desert feel together.
Logged
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #20 on: April 27, 2011, 11:43:31 AM »

I agree about Ethiopia, I would probably place it right below Russia.

Also, I had forgotten about that, and was thinking about it last night and decided that before any miraculous union occurred where the CoE entered Orthodoxy, there would probably already be an established Orthodox Church in England, which eventually (in my opinion) should be placed higher up. If a miraculous union occurred, then the CoE would just join that Orthodox Church.

Yes, the CoE would be graphed into the already-existing Orthodox presence there, and their overseas holdings would eventually fall under the omophor of the bishops native to those areas. However, the Church of the British Isles has maintained a separate liturgical tradition. It's western...but not Roman.

This was somewhat supressed in time by the Bishop of Rome (post-schism) but the classical mass of the CoE is a living liturgical tradition that should not be simply cast aside. They were quite important. The Celtic rites also have been distinct historically from the more English ones. I believe I heard once (from an Irish Catholic gone Antiochian Orthodox priest) that there was an "Irish Patriarchate" of sorts, before it was consumed by the Roman Church.

Likewise, the Roman Church itself would need to be carved up and given to the native bishops of the region, rather than it all falling under the omophor of the Roman Patriarchate (since the Pope of Rome is not a universal bishop in any Orthodox model). He would have to revert to his historical holdings, which include Western Europe and, at one point, a section of North Africa.

This could all be adjusted by Council, of course, I'm just pointing out the historical domains of various churches which are no longer Orthodox.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 27, 2011, 03:27:20 PM »

You are perfectly free to say you think we are not Orthodox.

Even on the OO forum?!
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,892


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2011, 09:45:59 PM »

As long as they are polite about it, they can identify their position for purposes of letting people know where they are coming from in their opinions and postings.  We are not forcing people to call us Orthodox when they don't believe we are.  We also don't want to bar people who don't believe we are Orthodox from interacting with us here. 

What is forbidden here is being provocative, trolling, baiting, coming here to start a fight, calling us nasty names, etc.
Logged

deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 27, 2011, 10:10:11 PM »

Oh. Ok.  Undecided
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #24 on: April 27, 2011, 11:41:01 PM »

What makes me really optimistic is when I've read writings by Oriental Monks, I don't see any dangerous differences between them and our theology. Not only that, but I've heard some monks, such as some of those in the Desert, refer to "Orthodox" and will often mean both Eastern & Oriental together.

This is an excellent point, and one I've noticed as well.  Another example of this can be found in the interviews conducted for the recent 'Mysteries of the Jesus Prayer' program.  To this neophyte, the only distinguishable difference between the monks at St. Antony's (OO) and St. Catherine's (EO) in the Sinai was that of head wear.  Their reflections on the Jesus Prayer seemed interchangeable and complimentary, indicating a very similar understanding/practice of the faith.

I'm aware that there are plenty of other voices and issues besides those covered by ascetic monks in the desert, but a certain unity of faith was noticeable in this context.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.138 seconds with 53 queries.