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

[Cyrillic]

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*

[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.

*kuch* Severus *kuch*

Indeed, this is true.

[NicholasMyra]

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

[NicholasMyra]

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.

[Severian]

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

What of it?

[Orthodox11]

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.

[NicholasMyra]

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

What of it?

So belong to Greek Ourtodux Chairch.

[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.

*kuch* Severus *kuch*

Henotikon.

[Severian]

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

What of it?

So belong to Greek Ourtodux Chairch.

I didn't think Apostolic succession was contingent upon ethnicity.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[NicholasMyra]

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

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.

[Dominika]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

[dzheremi]

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.

[Nephi]

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

I certainly like them.

[Samn!]

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.

[Salpy]

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?

[Severian]

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.

[Salpy]

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?

[dzheremi]

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.

[Samn!]

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...

[Severian]

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?

[Samn!]

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....

[Severian]

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.

[Iconodule]

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

[Severian]

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.

[Iconodule]

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.

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

[Iconodule]

From an official Armenian church website:

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.

[Samn!]

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.....

[Severian]

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.

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.

[Iconodule]

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.

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?

[Severian]

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.

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+

[Samn!]

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.

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.....

[Salpy]

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.

[yeshuaisiam]

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.

[dzheremi]

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.

[Salpy]

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.

[Iconodule]

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.

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."

[dzheremi]

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.

[Salpy]

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.

[Salpy]

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.

[HabteSelassie]

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

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Salpy]

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.

[Salpy]

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.