Which OO Church do you think is most likely to join the EO Church?

[MichaelArchangelos]

It's a shame that the EO and OO are divided. The OO are the closest group to Eastern Orthodoxy.

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?

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?

[dzheremi]

How could they "return" to a church communion they were never a part of in the first place? The question of this poll is poorly phrased and deeply ahistorical.

[Iconodule]

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.

[Ioannis Climacus]

How could they "return" to a church communion they were never a part of in the first place? The question of this poll is poorly phrased and deeply ahistorical.

The Copts and several others were once members of the Imperial Church, so it's not really "ahistorical".

[dzheremi]

Yes it is, because they weren't "Oriental Orthodox" then, just like you guys weren't "Eastern Orthodox". So saying "when will OO return to the EO Church" makes no sense. There was no EO or OO church when we were still in communion. These aren't real things, just convenient shorthand to describe our respective positions regarding Chalcedon.

[Asteriktos]

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?

They can keep their liturgies, but they would have to adopt EO iconography. That is a deal breaker.

[Ioannis Climacus]

Yes it is, because they weren't "Oriental Orthodox" then, just like you guys weren't "Eastern Orthodox". So saying "when will OO return to the EO Church" makes no sense. There was no EO or OO church when we were still in communion. These aren't real things, just convenient shorthand to describe our respective positions regarding Chalcedon.

You are arguing semantics. The OP is using modern names to refer to entities of a historical nature. No different than using terms like 'Byzantine' to refer to the Eastern Empire, or 'Roman Catholic' to refer to the western church post-1054, or 'WW1' to describe what was once called the Great War.

Would you agree that the Copts were once members of the Imperial Church?

[NicholasMyra]

They can keep their liturgies, but they would have to adopt EO iconography. That is a deal breaker.

One the Copts sort out their iconography amongst themselves (they've been re-constructing their style for the past few decades, as I understand it) What would have to change?

I mean, it would be nice for Christ to be depicted with the Red/Blue, but we don't even do that in a lot of Theotokos and Child icons.

[dzheremi]

Ioannis,

Indeed, we were once one church. My point is that you can't return to something that doesn't exist. EO and OO as labels for distinct communions only exist so long as the division persists (that's the whole reason why they're used), and even then only for the benefit of outsiders, so no matter who would be 'returning' to who (a matter of perspective, anyway), the question doesn't work.

[Salpy]

I'm thinking of changing the thread's title from "...most likely to return to the EO Church" to "...most likely to join the EO Church."

Would that make it historically less problematic?

[Salpy]

Or perhaps the word "unite" should be used.

In any event, I don't think any OO Church would go it alone.  My understanding is that there is some sort of an agreement between the OO Churches to that effect.

[Stavro]

 

How could they "return" to a church communion they were never a part of in the first place? The question of this poll is poorly phrased and deeply ahistorical.

The Copts and several others were once members of the Imperial Church, so it's not really "ahistorical".

I personally pray for the return of the Emperor himself.

We can change the title of this topic to " when will they return to the Imperial Church".

[NicholasMyra]

I personally pray for the return of the Emperor himself.

Jesus Christ?

(Orthodox forum is one of the only places I would have to clarify this  )

[Salpy]

I'll go with "join."

[Cyrillic]

How could they "return" to a church communion they were never a part of in the first place? The question of this poll is poorly phrased and deeply ahistorical.

The Copts and several others were once members of the Imperial Church, so it's not really "ahistorical".

Which was the  "Imperial" Church under emperor Anastasios? Did the EO leave it then?

Thanks to this thread I won't take EO complaints about uniatism seriously anymore.

[Alpo]

Thanks to this thread I won't take EO complaints about uniatism seriously anymore.

People shouldn't. It's a double-standard.

[Gorazd]

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?

I dont see that happen. But I can imagine more local full communions like in Antioch.

[Gorazd]

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?

They can keep their liturgies, but they would have to adopt EO iconography. That is a deal breaker.

Which icons do you object to exactly?

Since the only OO church I am really familar with is Alexandria, I would think that both historical Coptic iconography and the currently popular neo-Coptic iconography of Isaac Fanous (btw, he was a student of EO icon theologian and iconographer Léonide Ouspensky) are completely orthodox. What is problematic though are Catholic/Italian style icons still seen in many Coptic Churches in Egypt.

[Αριστοκλής]

No "None of the above" option?

[dhinuus]

It's a shame that the EO and OO are divided.

Agree 100%.
Which EO church is most likely to throw away the "Tome" issued by somone claiming infallability and (join/unite/return) to the faith of the first three ecumenical councils and the Christology of St. Cyril ?

[Agabus]

No "None of the above" option?

Or an "Especially not the Ethiopians" option?

[Αριστοκλής]

It's a shame that the EO and OO are divided.

Agree 100%.
Which EO church is most likely to throw away the "Tome" issued by somone claiming infallability and (join/unite/return) to the faith of the first three ecumenical councils and the Christology of St. Cyril ?

Now, now, you are well aware there was no infallability issue in 451.

[Αριστοκλής]

No "None of the above" option?

Or an "Especially not the Ethiopians" option?

Chuckle...yes.

[Samn!]

I could imagine a scenario where the Armenians and Syriacs might be willing to join the EO, were it not for promises of solidarity with the Copts and the Ethiopians. The Armenians-- who in any case weren't in communion with the OO until after the 10th century-- have on occasion made noises of accepting the validity of Chalcedonian theology and the Syriacs have extremely warm relationships with both the Antiochian Orthodox and Rome, their laypeople in practice intercommuning with both. On the other hand, the Copts, as exemplified by the late Pope Shenouda and Anba Bishoy, often articulate a theology that is strikingly unacceptable to the EO, something that put a quick end to their last attempted dialog with Moscow. And well, yeah, the Ethiopians.....

[Alpo]

On the other hand, the Copts, as exemplified by the late Pope Shenouda and Anba Bishoy, often articulate a theology that is strikingly unacceptable to the EO, something that put a quick end to their last attempted dialog with Moscow.

What happened?

[Samn!]

What happened?

As I understand it, the dialogue in Moscow in 2005 was cut short and not continued after Anba Bishoy gave a paper that was very disappointing to the Russians. That said, I've never seen a copy of this paper, but having read his other theological statements this isn't exactly a surprise.

[Alpo]

What happened?

As I understand it, the dialogue in Moscow in 2005 was cut short and not continued after Anba Bishoy gave a paper that was very disappointing to the Russians. That said, I've never seen a copy of this paper, but having read his other theological statements this isn't exactly a surprise.

What HG has written? Was this the controversy about theosis or something else?

[Ioannis Climacus]

Thanks to this thread I won't take EO complaints about uniatism seriously anymore.

Why would the thoughts of a few people on an Internet board effect this?

Regardless, most complaints about so-called uniatism are ridiculous. Truth should never be put aside so as to avoid "sheep stealing". If what one believes is true (and salvific), then it is only logical that one should spread this truth. This includes proselytizing those that St. John of Damascus calls "monophysites" (note to the moderator : I am quoting St. John).

[Samn!]

 Was this the controversy about theosis or something else?

I honestly don't know. In earlier dialogs he had made very hard-line statements about the unacceptability of EO councils without ever engaging with the content of those councils. In his Arabic writings available online, he shares Pope Shenouda's radically Islamified understanding of theosis and the Eucharist, which often involve Christological digressions that are beyond the pale for EO and arguably well outside the historical mainstream of OO thought.

[Asteriktos]

What would have to change?

No cartoons.

[Michał Kalina]

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

This thread is pointless.

[NicholasMyra]

What would have to change?

No cartoons.

From what I've been told IRL by Copts, the super chibi/Walt disantine/flash art icons are an aberration, not the standard. That they are poor attempts at mimicking the style of a famous Neo Coptic iconographer.

[Αριστοκλής]

This thread is pointless.

No argument there.

[sheenj]

Thanks to this thread I won't take EO complaints about uniatism seriously anymore.

Why would the thoughts of a few people on an Internet board effect this?

Regardless, most complaints about so-called uniatism are ridiculous. Truth should never be put aside so as to avoid "sheep stealing". If what one believes is true (and salvific), then it is only logical that one should spread this truth. This includes proselytizing those that St. John of Damascus calls "monophysites" (note to the moderator : I am quoting St. John).

The problem with St. John of Damascus is that he conflates various Non-Chalcedonian groups. He rightly condemns the works of John the Grammarian, who was a monophysite. Unfortunately, he uses the Grammarian's writings to unjustly condemn Saints Diascorus and Severus, who would have agreed with him concerning the Christology of John the Grammarian.

[Samn!]

who would have agreed with him concerning the Christology of John the Grammarian.

I'm not so sure about this. There is indeed a significant disagreement between the theology of Philoponus and Severus, but it would not make a difference as to which of the two is more or less 'monophysite'. Severus and Philoponus both believe in a personal nature. For Severus, however, there is a profound difference between the language used to talk about the Trinity and that used to talk about the Incarnation, such that one cannot speak of the persons of the Trinity as having personal natures. Philoponus, on the other hand, did not make this distinction, and so in considering the persons of the Trinity to each have their own nature, which caused posterity to judge him to be a tritheist. In any case, from the Damascene's perspective, what makes both these figures monophysites is that they hold to the notion of a personal nature.

For a good study of how Philoponus' thought relates to and develops Severus and contemporary anti-Chalcedonian trends, see Ewe Michael Lang's book John Philoponus and the Controversies over Chalcedon in the Sixth Century: A Study and Translation of the Arbiter.

[Severian]

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?"

[OrthoNoob]

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?"

How about "Which band of Greek schismatics is most likely to renounce their Nestorianism and crawl on their knees to kiss the feet of the Coptic Pope and beg to be admitted to Heaven?"

[Severian]

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?"

How about "Which band of Greek schismatics is most likely to renounce their Nestorianism and crawl on their knees to kiss the feet of the Coptic Pope and beg to be admitted to Heaven?"

Sounds fine by me.

[Cyrillic]

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

[Father Peter]

My own little church has 4 large neo-coptic icons of the highest quality and I also have an icon of St Severus at home by the same hand.

[ialmisry]

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

not the only one now

[Severian]

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

Nope.

[ialmisry]

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?

I dont see that happen. But I can imagine more local full communions like in Antioch.

Antioch is going to be the first to be re-united.

[ialmisry]

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.

[Severian]

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.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Oriental Orthodox Discussion (Moderator: Salpy) > Topic: Which OO Church do you think is most likely to join the EO Church?