OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 17, 2014, 04:03:24 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  
Poll
Question: Which of the OO Churches is most likely to join the EO Church in the foreseeable future?
Armenian Apostolic Church - 1 (7.7%)
Coptic Church - 3 (23.1%)
Ethiopian Tewahedo Church - 0 (0%)
Eritrean Tewahedo Church - 1 (7.7%)
Malankara Syrian Church (Indian Orthodox Church) - 0 (0%)
Syriac Church - 8 (61.5%)
Total Voters: 13

Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Which OO Church do you think is most likely to join the EO Church?  (Read 2807 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,194


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #45 on: October 31, 2012, 05:29:52 PM »

I would say the Syriacs since there is already a very close relationship with the Church of Antioch. But I doubt that such a thing would happen unilaterally.

As for them keeping their liturgies, they should absolutely do so. Their liturgies are ancient and venerable. Requiring them to adopt EO liturgy would guarantee the union would never happen.
The Syriacs *are* the Church of Antioch.

May be we should create a separate thread called "Which EO Church do you think is most likely to join the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?"
The Syriac OO Patriarch was never in Antioch.

*kuch* Severus *kuch*
Logged

"But slay her he did not, for between dream and deed laws and practicalities remain"
-Willem Elschot, 'The Marriage'.
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #46 on: October 31, 2012, 05:32:02 PM »

I would say the Syriacs since there is already a very close relationship with the Church of Antioch. But I doubt that such a thing would happen unilaterally.

As for them keeping their liturgies, they should absolutely do so. Their liturgies are ancient and venerable. Requiring them to adopt EO liturgy would guarantee the union would never happen.
The Syriacs *are* the Church of Antioch.

May be we should create a separate thread called "Which EO Church do you think is most likely to join the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?"
The Syriac OO Patriarch was never in Antioch.

*kuch* Severus *kuch*
Indeed, this is true.
Logged

On hiatus from posting. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Note that some of my older posts -especially those prior to late 2012- may not reflect my current views. In the meantime, please pray for my sinful self as I am in a critical and unsure juncture in my life. Thank you.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,883


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #47 on: October 31, 2012, 06:33:07 PM »

Severian, you know Antioch was a Hellenistic city, right?  police
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,883


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #48 on: October 31, 2012, 06:34:01 PM »

Am I the only one in this thread who likes Neo-Coptic icons?

Properly executed, they're fine.

Unfortunately the mimickers often crank out these weird flash art icons that look more like anime than an icon.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #49 on: October 31, 2012, 06:34:29 PM »

Severian, you know Antioch was a Hellenistic city, right?  police
What of it?
Logged

On hiatus from posting. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Note that some of my older posts -especially those prior to late 2012- may not reflect my current views. In the meantime, please pray for my sinful self as I am in a critical and unsure juncture in my life. Thank you.
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #50 on: October 31, 2012, 06:41:21 PM »

Am I the only one in this thread who likes Neo-Coptic icons?

I have a few at home that I really like. There are many that just look downright silly, but I don't think the neo-Coptic tradition should be judged based on poor examples thereof.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,883


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #51 on: October 31, 2012, 06:44:46 PM »

Severian, you know Antioch was a Hellenistic city, right?  police
What of it?

So belong to Greek Ourtodux Chairch.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,590



« Reply #52 on: October 31, 2012, 06:45:27 PM »

I would say the Syriacs since there is already a very close relationship with the Church of Antioch. But I doubt that such a thing would happen unilaterally.

As for them keeping their liturgies, they should absolutely do so. Their liturgies are ancient and venerable. Requiring them to adopt EO liturgy would guarantee the union would never happen.
The Syriacs *are* the Church of Antioch.

May be we should create a separate thread called "Which EO Church do you think is most likely to join the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?"
The Syriac OO Patriarch was never in Antioch.

*kuch* Severus *kuch*
Henotikon.
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
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #53 on: October 31, 2012, 06:47:11 PM »

Severian, you know Antioch was a Hellenistic city, right?  police
What of it?

So belong to Greek Ourtodux Chairch.
I didn't think Apostolic succession was contingent upon ethnicity.
Logged

On hiatus from posting. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Note that some of my older posts -especially those prior to late 2012- may not reflect my current views. In the meantime, please pray for my sinful self as I am in a critical and unsure juncture in my life. Thank you.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,590



« Reply #54 on: October 31, 2012, 06:59:14 PM »

I would say the Syriacs since there is already a very close relationship with the Church of Antioch. But I doubt that such a thing would happen unilaterally.

As for them keeping their liturgies, they should absolutely do so. Their liturgies are ancient and venerable. Requiring them to adopt EO liturgy would guarantee the union would never happen.
The Syriacs *are* the Church of Antioch.

May be we should create a separate thread called "Which EO Church do you think is most likely to join the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?"
The Syriac OO Patriarch was never in Antioch.
HH Mar Ignatius Zaka is the rightful successor of Sts. Peter and Paul, the Apostles who established the Church of Antioch.
Only when HB Patriarch Ignatius IV Hazim is not among the contestants.

The Emperor of the Romans elevated Mar Severus as Patriarch, and the Emperor of the Romans deposed Mar Severus as Patriarch.   There is canonical problems considering Sergius of Tella as the Patriarch of Antioch, and then Patriarch Paul II, consecrated by Met. Jacob Bardaeus of Edessa, returned to the Orthodox Chalcedonian Church, giving problems of such a claim superceding  Pat. Euphrasius succeeding Pat. Paul II and SS. Peter and Paul.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 07:30:31 PM by ialmisry » 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
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #55 on: October 31, 2012, 07:04:03 PM »

I would say the Syriacs since there is already a very close relationship with the Church of Antioch. But I doubt that such a thing would happen unilaterally.

As for them keeping their liturgies, they should absolutely do so. Their liturgies are ancient and venerable. Requiring them to adopt EO liturgy would guarantee the union would never happen.
The Syriacs *are* the Church of Antioch.

May be we should create a separate thread called "Which EO Church do you think is most likely to join the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?"
The Syriac OO Patriarch was never in Antioch.
HH Mar Ignatius Zaka is the rightful successor of Sts. Peter and Paul, the Apostles who established the Church of Antioch.
Only when HB Patriarch Ignatius IV Hazim is not among the contestants.
I have a great respect for him. But my ecclesiological identity requires me to believe that Mar Ignatius Zaka is the rightful Patriarch.
Logged

On hiatus from posting. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Note that some of my older posts -especially those prior to late 2012- may not reflect my current views. In the meantime, please pray for my sinful self as I am in a critical and unsure juncture in my life. Thank you.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,883


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #56 on: October 31, 2012, 07:11:11 PM »

Severian, you know Antioch was a Hellenistic city, right?  police
What of it?

So belong to Greek Ourtodux Chairch.
I didn't think Apostolic succession was contingent upon ethnicity.
Obviously you have not met ze phanar.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Dominika
Serbian/Polish
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Poland
Posts: 1,005


St. Luke, pray for us!


WWW
« Reply #57 on: October 31, 2012, 07:40:18 PM »

Patriarch Karekin once said the OOs should unite with us unanimously and together. He can't imagine any other solution.

This thread is pointless.
+1

And I think there is a difference between "join" and unite". Neither OO need to join EO nor EO need to join OO - EO and OO should be officially united.
Logged

Pray for persecuted Christians, especially in Serbian Kosovo and Raška, Egypt and Syria
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,590



« Reply #58 on: October 31, 2012, 07:44:16 PM »

Patriarch Karekin once said the OOs should unite with us unanimously and together. He can't imagine any other solution.

This thread is pointless.
+1

And I think there is a difference between "join" and unite". Neither OO need to join EO nor EO need to join OO - EO and OO should be officially united.
Yes, I cannot imagine it happened by OO Antioch leaving the OO to reunite with EO Antioch.
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
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,177


« Reply #59 on: October 31, 2012, 08:08:40 PM »

Patriarch Karekin once said the OOs should unite with us unanimously and together. He can't imagine any other solution.

This thread is pointless.
+1

And I think there is a difference between "join" and unite". Neither OO need to join EO nor EO need to join OO - EO and OO should be officially united.

Well put. This thread is ridiculous.
Logged

Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,368



« Reply #60 on: October 31, 2012, 08:14:35 PM »

Am I the only one in this thread who likes Neo-Coptic icons?

I certainly like them.
Logged
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #61 on: October 31, 2012, 08:17:37 PM »

Patriarch Karekin once said the OOs should unite with us unanimously and together. He can't imagine any other solution.

This thread is pointless.
+1

And I think there is a difference between "join" and unite". Neither OO need to join EO nor EO need to join OO - EO and OO should be officially united.

Well put. This thread is ridiculous.


Yeah I dunno... I think it's far from demonstrated credibly that EO and OO Christologies are actually the same. The tendency to gloss over the wide range of anti-Chalcedonian Christologies, both contemporary and historical, is rather frustrating.
Logged
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,639


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #62 on: October 31, 2012, 08:21:53 PM »

The Armenians-- who in any case weren't in communion with the OO until after the 10th century--

We were in communion with the other OO's all along.  I don't know where you got the "after the 10th century" claim.

Where did you see or hear that?
Logged

Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #63 on: October 31, 2012, 08:22:09 PM »

Patriarch Karekin once said the OOs should unite with us unanimously and together. He can't imagine any other solution.

This thread is pointless.
+1

And I think there is a difference between "join" and unite". Neither OO need to join EO nor EO need to join OO - EO and OO should be officially united.

Well put. This thread is ridiculous.


Yeah I dunno... I think it's far from demonstrated credibly that EO and OO Christologies are actually the same. The tendency to gloss over the wide range of anti-Chalcedonian Christologies, both contemporary and historical, is rather frustrating.
Likewise, the tendency for modern OOs to overlook the Nestorian tendencies in Chalcedonian Christology (both modern and historical) is also very frustrating. I have read many troubling Christological statements from Chalcedonians on this forum and even from the ancient Chalcedonian Patristic writers.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 08:23:25 PM by Severian » Logged

On hiatus from posting. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Note that some of my older posts -especially those prior to late 2012- may not reflect my current views. In the meantime, please pray for my sinful self as I am in a critical and unsure juncture in my life. Thank you.
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,639


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #64 on: October 31, 2012, 08:23:18 PM »

Patriarch Karekin once said the OOs should unite with us unanimously and together. He can't imagine any other solution.

This thread is pointless.
+1

And I think there is a difference between "join" and unite". Neither OO need to join EO nor EO need to join OO - EO and OO should be officially united.

Well put. This thread is ridiculous.


Yeah I dunno... I think it's far from demonstrated credibly that EO and OO Christologies are actually the same. The tendency to gloss over the wide range of anti-Chalcedonian Christologies, both contemporary and historical, is rather frustrating.

Which "wide range" of Christologies have/do the OO's hold?
Logged

dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,177


« Reply #65 on: October 31, 2012, 08:32:05 PM »

Patriarch Karekin once said the OOs should unite with us unanimously and together. He can't imagine any other solution.

This thread is pointless.
+1

And I think there is a difference between "join" and unite". Neither OO need to join EO nor EO need to join OO - EO and OO should be officially united.

Well put. This thread is ridiculous.


Yeah I dunno... I think it's far from demonstrated credibly that EO and OO Christologies are actually the same. The tendency to gloss over the wide range of anti-Chalcedonian Christologies, both contemporary and historical, is rather frustrating.

I do not think EO and OO Christologies are the same. I think people on this board make poorly thought out threads that rest upon presumptions that certainly not all of us share. Hence this thread is ridiculous.
Logged

Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #66 on: October 31, 2012, 09:01:57 PM »

The Armenians-- who in any case weren't in communion with the OO until after the 10th century--

We were in communion with the other OO's all along.  I don't know where you got the "after the 10th century" claim.

Where did you see or hear that?

The Armenians wavered in their Christology for a number of centuries, when they were even in contact with anyone, and had the additional problem of liturgical practices (especially azymes and animal sacrifice) that were considered unacceptable by virtually everyone else. There's a small but interesting corpus of anti-Armenian texts written by Syriac miaphysite writers. Dionysius bar Salibi (d. second half of the 12th century) wrote the most famous of these, but we also have a similar polemic by Patriarch John X (d. 1073) in a letter he wrote to the Catholicos Gregory II (d. 1105). The full acceptance of the Armenians by the Copts and Syrians came about in fits and starts over a number of centuries. The notion of "Oriental Orthodox" is to some degree a modern construction...
Logged
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #67 on: October 31, 2012, 09:04:40 PM »

The Armenians-- who in any case weren't in communion with the OO until after the 10th century--

We were in communion with the other OO's all along.  I don't know where you got the "after the 10th century" claim.

Where did you see or hear that?

The Armenians wavered in their Christology for a number of centuries, when they were even in contact with anyone, and had the additional problem of liturgical practices (especially azymes and animal sacrifice) that were considered unacceptable by virtually everyone else. There's a small but interesting corpus of anti-Armenian texts written by Syriac miaphysite writers. Dionysius bar Salibi (d. second half of the 12th century) wrote the most famous of these, but we also have a similar polemic by Patriarch John X (d. 1073) in a letter he wrote to the Catholicos Gregory II (d. 1105). The full acceptance of the Armenians by the Copts and Syrians came about in fits and starts over a number of centuries. The notion of "Oriental Orthodox" is to some degree a modern construction...
What does this have to do with anti-Chalcedonian Christology as a whole?
Logged

On hiatus from posting. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Note that some of my older posts -especially those prior to late 2012- may not reflect my current views. In the meantime, please pray for my sinful self as I am in a critical and unsure juncture in my life. Thank you.
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #68 on: October 31, 2012, 09:10:34 PM »

The Armenians-- who in any case weren't in communion with the OO until after the 10th century--

We were in communion with the other OO's all along.  I don't know where you got the "after the 10th century" claim.

Where did you see or hear that?

The Armenians wavered in their Christology for a number of centuries, when they were even in contact with anyone, and had the additional problem of liturgical practices (especially azymes and animal sacrifice) that were considered unacceptable by virtually everyone else. There's a small but interesting corpus of anti-Armenian texts written by Syriac miaphysite writers. Dionysius bar Salibi (d. second half of the 12th century) wrote the most famous of these, but we also have a similar polemic by Patriarch John X (d. 1073) in a letter he wrote to the Catholicos Gregory II (d. 1105). The full acceptance of the Armenians by the Copts and Syrians came about in fits and starts over a number of centuries. The notion of "Oriental Orthodox" is to some degree a modern construction...
What does this have to do with anti-Chalcedonian Christology as a whole?


Christology, it's maybe tangential. But, I took this forum to be about ecclesiology in some sense....
Logged
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #69 on: October 31, 2012, 09:12:12 PM »

The Armenians-- who in any case weren't in communion with the OO until after the 10th century--

We were in communion with the other OO's all along.  I don't know where you got the "after the 10th century" claim.

Where did you see or hear that?

The Armenians wavered in their Christology for a number of centuries, when they were even in contact with anyone, and had the additional problem of liturgical practices (especially azymes and animal sacrifice) that were considered unacceptable by virtually everyone else. There's a small but interesting corpus of anti-Armenian texts written by Syriac miaphysite writers. Dionysius bar Salibi (d. second half of the 12th century) wrote the most famous of these, but we also have a similar polemic by Patriarch John X (d. 1073) in a letter he wrote to the Catholicos Gregory II (d. 1105). The full acceptance of the Armenians by the Copts and Syrians came about in fits and starts over a number of centuries. The notion of "Oriental Orthodox" is to some degree a modern construction...
What does this have to do with anti-Chalcedonian Christology as a whole?


Christology, it's maybe tangential. But, I took this forum to be about ecclesiology in some sense....
I would like to hear what you have to say.
Logged

On hiatus from posting. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Note that some of my older posts -especially those prior to late 2012- may not reflect my current views. In the meantime, please pray for my sinful self as I am in a critical and unsure juncture in my life. Thank you.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,006


"My god is greater."


« Reply #70 on: October 31, 2012, 09:14:21 PM »

For a while, as I understand it, the Armenian Church was influenced by Julianism and condemned Severus of Antioch.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #71 on: October 31, 2012, 09:16:27 PM »

For a while, as I understand it, the Armenian Church was influenced by Julianism and condemned Severus of Antioch.
For a while, as I understand it, the Imperial Church was influenced by Monothelitism and persecuted Maximus of Constantinople. Wink

« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 09:17:18 PM by Severian » Logged

On hiatus from posting. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Note that some of my older posts -especially those prior to late 2012- may not reflect my current views. In the meantime, please pray for my sinful self as I am in a critical and unsure juncture in my life. Thank you.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,006


"My god is greater."


« Reply #72 on: October 31, 2012, 09:21:10 PM »

For a while, as I understand it, the Armenian Church was influenced by Julianism and condemned Severus of Antioch.
For a while, as I understand it, the Imperial Church was influenced by Monothelitism and persecuted Maximus of Constantinople. Wink



Are you familiar with the history surrounding the Council of Manzikert?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,006


"My god is greater."


« Reply #73 on: October 31, 2012, 09:24:43 PM »

From an official Armenian church website:

Quote
At this council some dogmatic questions were discussed which had been raised in the Assyrian Church, and led to divergence. The famous Armenian Theologian Translator Khosrovik took part in this Council. The goal of this council was to amend the divergences that had occurred between the two churches concerning the purity of the Savior’s body. The Assyrians accused the Armenians of following the teaching of Julian of Halicarnassus and the Armenians in their turn accused the Assyrians of following the teachings of Severus of Antioch.

The Council established 10 anathemas which refuted the teachings of Julian of Halicarnas and Severus of Antioch and their followers and reestablished the orthodox teaching of the Holy Trinity. As a result an alliance was created between the Armenian and Assyrian churches.

Severus was apparently not condemned by name at this council, but its anathemas were believed by the Armenians to be directed at his doctrine.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 09:26:01 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #74 on: October 31, 2012, 09:25:10 PM »

Quote
I would like to hear what you have to say.

Well, I can't so much give any kind of fully formed opinion so much as identify desiderata. One of the major ones would be a history of the relationships between the different churches that came to be known (not so long ago) as 'Oriental Orthodox'. Another is a survey of contemporary Christological teachings in these churches-- the range of languages involved means that there's not as much communication going on as would be desirable. And, not to be snarky, but it would be very interesting to see how many of these groups have the writings of Severus available to them in Arabic/Armenian/Malayalam/Amharic, etc... I've read a lot of contemporary Coptic theological writing in Arabic, and engagement with the works of Sts Cyrill and Athanasius is pretty rare as it is-- I've never seen modern quotations from Severus.....
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 09:26:16 PM by Samn! » Logged
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #75 on: October 31, 2012, 09:25:21 PM »

For a while, as I understand it, the Armenian Church was influenced by Julianism and condemned Severus of Antioch.
For a while, as I understand it, the Imperial Church was influenced by Monothelitism and persecuted Maximus of Constantinople. Wink



Are you familiar with the history surrounding the Council of Manzikert?
Yes. My point is that the episode the Armenians had with Julianism does not bring reproach upon historical anti-Chalcedonian Christology as a whole.

Plus, I think that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that St. Severus is no longer anathematized by Armenians, even though his anathema was never formally rescinded.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 09:27:11 PM by Severian » Logged

On hiatus from posting. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Note that some of my older posts -especially those prior to late 2012- may not reflect my current views. In the meantime, please pray for my sinful self as I am in a critical and unsure juncture in my life. Thank you.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,006


"My god is greater."


« Reply #76 on: October 31, 2012, 09:27:05 PM »

For a while, as I understand it, the Armenian Church was influenced by Julianism and condemned Severus of Antioch.
For a while, as I understand it, the Imperial Church was influenced by Monothelitism and persecuted Maximus of Constantinople. Wink



Are you familiar with the history surrounding the Council of Manzikert?
Yes. My point is that the episode the Armenians had with Julianism does not bring reproach upon historical anti-Chalcedonian Christology as a whole.

But the question is, is it possible at all to speak about "historical anti-Chalcedonian Christology as a whole", as something totally unified?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria, Lebanon & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #77 on: October 31, 2012, 09:28:20 PM »

For a while, as I understand it, the Armenian Church was influenced by Julianism and condemned Severus of Antioch.
For a while, as I understand it, the Imperial Church was influenced by Monothelitism and persecuted Maximus of Constantinople. Wink



Are you familiar with the history surrounding the Council of Manzikert?
Yes. My point is that the episode the Armenians had with Julianism does not bring reproach upon historical anti-Chalcedonian Christology as a whole.

But the question is, is it possible at all to speak about "historical anti-Chalcedonian Christology as a whole", as something totally unified?
I think the same question can be applied to the Chalcedonians, at least to some degree.

EDIT: Will have to respond later...

+Peace+
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 09:37:04 PM by Severian » Logged

On hiatus from posting. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Note that some of my older posts -especially those prior to late 2012- may not reflect my current views. In the meantime, please pray for my sinful self as I am in a critical and unsure juncture in my life. Thank you.
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #78 on: October 31, 2012, 09:33:12 PM »

For a while, as I understand it, the Armenian Church was influenced by Julianism and condemned Severus of Antioch.
For a while, as I understand it, the Imperial Church was influenced by Monothelitism and persecuted Maximus of Constantinople. Wink



Are you familiar with the history surrounding the Council of Manzikert?
Yes. My point is that the episode the Armenians had with Julianism does not bring reproach upon historical anti-Chalcedonian Christology as a whole.

But the question is, is it possible at all to speak about "historical anti-Chalcedonian Christology as a whole", as something totally unified?
I think the same question can be applied to the Chalcedonians, at least to some degree.


On the Chalcedonian side, especially if we set aside Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th ecumenical councils, when read together (and with the admission that Chalcedon can be interpreted incorrectly without the clarification of the 5th council!), gives a definite, coherent picture. For the groups that wind up being the OOs, there's not really an equivalent corpus of universally authoritative statements after the 3rd council.....
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 09:34:06 PM by Samn! » Logged
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,639


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #79 on: October 31, 2012, 09:45:12 PM »

The Armenians-- who in any case weren't in communion with the OO until after the 10th century--

We were in communion with the other OO's all along.  I don't know where you got the "after the 10th century" claim.

Where did you see or hear that?

The Armenians wavered in their Christology for a number of centuries, when they were even in contact with anyone, and had the additional problem of liturgical practices (especially azymes and animal sacrifice) that were considered unacceptable by virtually everyone else. There's a small but interesting corpus of anti-Armenian texts written by Syriac miaphysite writers. Dionysius bar Salibi (d. second half of the 12th century) wrote the most famous of these, but we also have a similar polemic by Patriarch John X (d. 1073) in a letter he wrote to the Catholicos Gregory II (d. 1105). The full acceptance of the Armenians by the Copts and Syrians came about in fits and starts over a number of centuries. The notion of "Oriental Orthodox" is to some degree a modern construction...

What you don't know about the Armenians is a lot.
Logged

yeshuaisiam
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox, Anabaptist, Other Early Christianity kind of jumbled together
Posts: 4,227


A pulling horse cannot kick.


« Reply #80 on: October 31, 2012, 09:49:29 PM »

The answer to the subject is NONE except perhaps they may go into communion together.

If by join it it means the bishops start sharing and making new jurisdictional lines, very doubtful.
Logged

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,177


« Reply #81 on: October 31, 2012, 09:49:45 PM »

On the Chalcedonian side, especially if we set aside Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th ecumenical councils, when read together (and with the admission that Chalcedon can be interpreted incorrectly without the clarification of the 5th council!), gives a definite, coherent picture. For the groups that wind up being the OOs, there's not really an equivalent corpus of universally authoritative statements after the 3rd council.....

In other words, if you are allowed to set aside the vast majority of the Chalcedonians (because they do not help your case that Chalcedonian Christology is "definite" and "coherent"), then everything looks super, but if the Armenians, some 10 million out of a communion of 70+ million (conservative estimate; the Ethiopians are roughly 45 million by themselves, the Copts between 10-12 million, etc.) at one time anathematized a person who is recognized as a saint by the rest of the communion, then non-Chalcedonian Christology is forever an irreparable, jumbled mess? Very lame. Not buying it at all.

« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 09:50:15 PM by dzheremi » Logged

Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,639


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #82 on: October 31, 2012, 09:56:31 PM »

Regarding Severus, Julianism and the Council of Manzikert:

Around the sixth century, Julianism was so fashionable that even the Emperor Justinian took it up before his death.  (See Evagrius Scholasticus' Ecclesiastical History, Book 4, Chap. 39)  Julianism made inroads into Armenia, but not to the extent that the writings of Julian were ever translated into Armenian.  Or if they were, they were never in any way preserved.  

The anathemas against Severus were never renewed past the seventh century and so they are, as a practical matter, defunct.  Severus' writings were never translated into Armenian, and it seems the Armenians had misconceptions about what he taught:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,16969.0.html

This was straightened out at the Council of Manzikert, in which bishops from both the Armenians and Syrians met and had a meeting of minds on various issues, including Christology.

None of any of this ever resulted in excommunications.  There was never a time when the Armenians were not in communion with the Copts and Syriac Orthodox.  Did polemics go back and forth between theologians on various issues over the centuries?  Of course, but I am sure the same can be said about the Chalcedonians.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 10:09:41 PM by Salpy » Logged

Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,006


"My god is greater."


« Reply #83 on: October 31, 2012, 09:56:41 PM »

On the Chalcedonian side, especially if we set aside Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th ecumenical councils, when read together (and with the admission that Chalcedon can be interpreted incorrectly without the clarification of the 5th council!), gives a definite, coherent picture. For the groups that wind up being the OOs, there's not really an equivalent corpus of universally authoritative statements after the 3rd council.....

In other words, if you are allowed to set aside the vast majority of the Chalcedonians (because they do not help your case that Chalcedonian Christology is "definite" and "coherent"),

We are speaking of communions here, namely, EO and OO. It is quite fair then to set aside the RC's and Protestants since they are not relevant to this discussion.

Quote
then non-Chalcedonian Christology is forever an irreparable, jumbled mess? Very lame. Not buying it at all.

Good, because I don't think Samn or anyone else has said here that your Christology is an "irreparable, jumbled mess."
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
dzheremi
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,177


« Reply #84 on: October 31, 2012, 10:02:30 PM »

The insinuation is that the OO are not a unified communion, Iconodule. As Salpy points out with regard to the Armenians, whom Samn tried to use to bolster this claim, that is not true at all.
Logged

Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,639


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #85 on: October 31, 2012, 10:11:12 PM »

Since this is rapidly turning into a thread more suitable for the private forum, I am going to ask everyone to cool off.  Let's lower the tone, and get back to the OP.
Logged

Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,639


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #86 on: October 31, 2012, 10:19:20 PM »

Shortly after I posted the above warning, another post arguing about Christology was posted.  It was moved to the private forum, as will be any future such posts.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,47807.msg830144/topicseen.html#msg830144

If anyone wants to join the private forum, please pm Fr. George.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 10:19:47 PM by Salpy » Logged

HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #87 on: October 31, 2012, 11:21:26 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

No "None of the above" option?
Or an "Especially not the Ethiopians" option?



Haha.. this is probably true.  Then again, following the example of HIM Haile Selassie I ecumenical efforts in the 1950s and 1960s, the Tewahedo Church has actually been leading the way towards Ecumenism and reconciliation, both in keeping strong relationships between inter-Oriental Orthodox and also dialogue with Chalcedonians both Eastern Orthodox and also Roman Catholic.  By the 1990s, we've developed rather cordial relations across the Sacramental Christian world, so you never know.  These matters are truly on God, but Ethiopians have indeed remained active in dialogue and discussion about these matters.  I'm not quite sure our fathers and folks would be comfortable with the phrasing "join the EO Church" but reconciliation in some way I suppose is possible.  There is a complicated train of mutual history, theology, politics, and culture which need to be ironed, but in truth from the fourth through almost sixth centuries we more or less got along with all the other jurisdictions as a single Orthodox-Catholic family Smiley

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,639


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #88 on: November 01, 2012, 10:01:49 PM »

Polemical tangent of a historical nature was split off and put here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,47807.msg830329.html#msg830329

Knock it off, you guys.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 10:02:06 PM by Salpy » Logged

Salpy
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,639


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #89 on: November 01, 2012, 10:05:37 PM »

Let me remind everyone of the two questions posed by the original post:

1.  "If one of the OO Churches were to break communion with the others, accept Chalcedon and the other Councils, and enter into full communion with the EOC, which one do you think it would be?"

2.  "Also, considering such a thing did happen, would the former OO Church have to adopt the EO Divine Liturgy, or would they be allowed to keep their own Liturgy?"

Please restrict your comments here to addressing these two questions.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.


« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 10:06:07 PM by Salpy » Logged

Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  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 0.161 seconds with 74 queries.