Topic: Skeletons?

[Anna]

As in inquirer who's very busy learning church history right now, I'm curious. Do you know of any EO "skeletons" in the historical closet? Anything that makes you think "Gosh, we probably shouldn't have done that"?

Thanks,
Anna (the newbie)

[EkhristosAnesti]

Do you know of any EO "skeletons" in the historical closet? Anything that makes you think "Gosh, we probably shouldn't have done that"?

Ah yep...but people will get mad at me if i were to say anything...

Peace.

[choirfiend]

That, on the other hand, totally enamors you to everyone. 

big stuff? Not off the top of my head, but even if--people are fallen and will do bad things, but the Church is good for everyone.

[Anna]

Certainly, people are fallen and sin. I'm definitely not expecting perfection. I just wondered if there was anything on the order of, say, the Crusades, that I should know about. I have no doubt that I'll find things as I continue my journey through church history. I guess I just wanted to ask because finding out about the history of the EO church is not all that easy. The book I'm reading right now on church history is very western-slanted.

As I said, I'm not expecting perfection or anything. People are people. But I do appreciate the humility shown when people can say "Yep, we did that and it wasn't right."

[choirfiend]

Well, then, no, nothing on the scale of the Crusades that I am aware of. Are you reading The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware? It's a history of the Church; I dont know how western its slant is.

[EkhristosAnesti]

Choirfriend, are you denying the Chalcedonian Crusade against the Copts?

Peace.

[EkhristosAnesti]

That, on the other hand, totally enamors you to everyone.

Hardly; I believe ive turned more people off in my zeal to defend the "non-Chalcedonian" Oriental Orthodox faith.

Peace.

[choirfiend]

Just be nice, Ekristos. There's no need to be defensive all the time; sometimes it's just nice to be.

Please do tell me about the EO Crusades. Online sources would be appreciated! I love to learn.

[Anna]

I want to apologize for bringing this up the first place. I wasn't trying to get anyone into a fight. Just trying to learn something. I can see now that it wasn't a good question to ask.

Is there any way I can request this thread be closed?

[EkhristosAnesti]

Dear Anna,

No need to close this thread at all, i'm certainly not getting into a fight. I simply asked choirfriend a simple question - there is no need for anyone to presume that the question was made in hostility.

In relation to your initial post, I would bring up the point that after the Council of Chalcedon, the Chalcedonians (EO) especially under the authority of Justinian, murdered and persecuted many of the Copts (OO), as an extreme measure of trying to impose on us the Chalcedonian decrees that we had rejected.

Choirfriend, I will try and do a web-search to find you any easy and accessible online sources, and if i cannot find anything, I will upload some scanned pages of a textbook or two that I have.

Peace.

[Asteriktos]

The way that Rome and Constantinople fought over the Bulgarian Kingdom/People in the 9th century was not our finest hour. I believe at one point Constantinople gave the Bulgarian King two options: submit to the Patriarch of Constantinople, or have his country invaded by the Byzantine army. Rome didn't come out smelling like roses in that whole situation either.

[Silouan]

The treatment of Jews in Orthodox countries is another sad thing. 

[Addai]

As in inquirer who's very busy learning church history right now, I'm curious. Do you know of any EO "skeletons" in the historical closet? Anything that makes you think "Gosh, we probably shouldn't have done that"?

Thanks,
Anna (the newbie)

Well I would cite the life of our Coptic saint, St. Samuel the Confessor as one.



A confessor is a person who suffers for God's sake.  He may be tortured or abused in many different ways, but his suffering does not result in martyrdom.

St. Samuel was born about 597 A.D. in the city of Daklube.  When his parents became sure of his persistence to live as a monk, they built a superb church where st. Samuel was ordained deacon to serve with his father the priest.  After his parents died he went to Scetis by a Divine proclamation.  In Abba Macarius' monastery, he became the disciple of abba. Aghathon,  and god gave him the gift of healing and performing miracles.  Crowds of people flocked to him, and many became his disciples.  St Samuel set himself to studying the Scriptures, meditating, and praying  with his teacher.  In addition to the spiritual pursuits, they worked with their hands.  Quite likely, they descended once a year to help gather the harvest, as did St. Macarius
and his monks three centuries before.

When Heraclius imposed Cyrus as the alien patriarch and governor over Egypt, the latter set out to chase Pope Benjamine.  He sent out Maximian, his military commander, with two hundred soldiers to Scetis where they occupied St. Macarius church.  Then he called the monks to a meeting while St. Yuanis the protopriest was  out hiding the sacred vessels from the invaders.  Abba Samuel was arrested, and Maximian read to him the letter of
Cyrus which contained the Chalcedonian doctrine and the Tome  of Leo.  When the commander received no response, he began to threaten him.  St.Samuel replied, "we do not agree to the Yome or accept the Council of Chalcedon.  We also do not recognize any archbishop other than ourfather Abba Benjamine."  Then he asked Maximian to show him the letter, and when he held it in his hand he announced the excommunication of the Tome, the Council, and whoever accepted their doctrine, then he tore up the letter.

Abba Samuel was beaten without mercy until one of his eyes was scooped out, and was left between life and death.  The monks carried him to a nearby cell, and prayed on him because they thought that he had died.  But the saint regained consciousness, and in time regained his health also.

After these incidents , Abba Samuel left, accompanied by four other monks, to the Mount of Qalamon in the Fayoum region.  Here they settled in a small monastery dedicated to the Blessed Virgin.  This monastery currently exists and is still inhabited by monks.  During the occupancy of Abba Samuel, the monastery flourished, and to this day it bears the name of the saint.  In the vicinity of the monastery, there flows a stream with many fish in it.  The monks sustain themselves on the fish and the water the stream provides.

In his monastery, his reputation again surpassed the limits of the desert. Fourteen brothers came to live with him.  Also multitudes of people flocked to him bringing the sick and the infirm.  He patiently attended to the need of everyone.  Whenever he felt the urge to solitude, he quietly slipped out to a nearby cave.  there he would spend a week or so in the companionship of god, before returing to the monastery with a radiant countenance.

After this Cyrus went to fayoum in pursuit of the followers of Abba Benjamin. when St. Samuel head his intention he left the monastery with all the monks and so when Cyrus arrived he found non of the monks there.  St. Samuel was captured, and tortured but he was set free on condition that he would leave the fayoum mountain.

Shortly after, some Berbers from Lybia invaded the region.  They ravaged the village's church, and took St. Samuel captive.  After treating him very badly  they took him away with them but when they found that he was useless to them, they left him half dead, but with the help of God he returned  safely to his monastery after four days walking.

Other Barbers came and took Abba Samuel where he spent three years in slavery during which he suffered greatly at the hands of those savages who worshipped the sun. they tried to force him to worship the sun, but he refused.  They put him in chains with a young girl and the two were left to guard camels day and night but he sustained his purity with the help of God.

St. Samuel was released as a result of the many miracles that he performed in curing sick people among whom was the wife of his capoter.

His captor asked St. Samuel to pray to God for his wife to give birth to a child and promised him his liberty if this happened.

When the boy was born Zerkandas, his captor fulfilled his promise and gave Abba Samuel
a camel and five servants to show him the way.  Furthermore, he requested St. Samuel to baptize him before departing.

After his return he rebuilt the monastery after the name of virgin Mary.  St. Samuel was permitted to live in peace for the Moslems had conquered the land, and the alien patriarch was not appointed by Byzantium anymore.  He spent his last days in teaching those who came to live with him.

The virgin Mary appeared to Abba Samuel blessed him and promised to help him and all his monks.

St. Samuel died at the age of 96 about AD.693, he lived 74 years as a monk.  The Coptic Church celebrates the feast of St. Samuel on 8 Koiak (17 Dec.)

May the prayers and supplications of this great Saint Abba Samuel the confessor be with us.  Amen.

[observer]

<The treatment of Jews in Orthodox countries is another sad thing. > 

Oh Dear! It's back again!  Jews in early Russian history that would not stop spreading anti-Christian propaganda and plotting against the Orthodox princes, were banished.  Those who didn't do this, stayed and just got on with normal life and even became Orthodox Christian.  Many of the senior clergy were of Jewish origin. 

[GiC]

Most of these so-called 'skeletons' people are associating with the church are actually the conduct of the State. It was not the Church that Persecuted Heretics and Jews, but rather the Emperor or King. When forces, be they foreign or domestic, threaten the stability of the Empire the authorities have a responsibility to respond. This has been the Case with Jews, from time to time, as well as with heretical sects since the time of St. Constantine; and measures that today may be regarded as excessive were, at the time, both appropriate and necessary.

[EkhristosAnesti]

Here is the information requested; accounting for the persecution of the Coptic Orthodox Church by the Chalcedonians under both Justinian and other pro-Chalcedonian rulers:

My information concerning Justinians persecutions I have collected from a variety of sources, including a primary historical source - The Secret History by Procopius of Caesareaa. This work has been translated by Richard Atwater (Kessinger Publishing: 2003); you can find an online copy of this translation here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/procop-anec.html from which I will be quoting.

A little background on the author before we get into the relevant material: Procopius of Caesarea (in Palestine) [born c.490/507- died c.560s] is the most important source for information about the reign of the emperor Justinian [born 482/3, ruled. 527-565] and his wife Theodora [d. 547/8]. From 527 to 531 Procopius was a counsel the great general of the time, Belisarius [505-565]…. He wrote a number of official histories… The Secret History claims to provide explanations and additions that the author could not insert into his work on the Wars for fear of retribution from Justinian and Theodora.

Source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/procop-anec.html

Justinian’s campaign against those who did not adhere to his doctrines:

"Agents were sent everywhere to force whomever they chanced upon to renounce the faith of their fathers. This, which seemed impious to rustic people, caused them to rebel against those who gave them such an order. Thus many perished at the hands of the persecuting faction, and others did away with themselves, foolishly thinking this the holier course of two evils; but most of them by far quitted the land of their fathers, and fled the country."

Source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/procop-anec.html ---> Chapter 11

Coptic Orthodox Christians: A target of Justinian’s evil campaign as depicted above:

“During the reign of Justinian, all available methods were employed to impose the Chalcedonian decrees on the Copts, yet without any significant success.” (Meinardus, Otto. F.A. Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity, page 54)

He killed all who dissented from his from his Chalcedonian brand of Christianity:

"When he himself thus illegally got possession of estates of people alive or dead, he would straightway make them over to one of the churches, gilding his violence with the color of piety—and so that his victims could not possibly get their property back. Furthermore he committed an inconceivable number of murders for the same cause: for in his zeal to gather all men into one Christian doctrine, he recklessly killed all who dissented, and this too he did in the name of piety. For he did not call it homicide, when those who perished happened to be of a belief that was different from his own."

Source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/procop-anec.html ---> Chapter 13

…The Copts massacred for their adherence to the undefiled and pure Orthodox faith:

"The aftermath of Chalcedon was one of the saddest periods in the history of Coptic Christian antiquity. The Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria was deposed and exiled by the Western civil and ecclesiastical authorities. The Byzantines installed an Imperial Byzantine Patriarch for the See of Alexandria. This infuriated the Copts and they retaliated by electing a native rival Orthodox Patriarch. Consequently, the See of Alexandria was split between two Patriarchs, the Melkite or the Royalist Chalcedonian from Constantinople, and the native Jacobite or Monophysite who does not recognize Chalcedon. The Byzantines, aided by the civil authorities, persecuted the Copts very severely massacring them even as they worshiped inside their churches. All attempts to reconcile the two lines failed until the Arab invasion of Egypt when a new chapter in the history of the Copts' oppression was about to be written. "

Soruce: The History of the Coptic Church by Fr. Marcos Marcos; available online at: http://stmarkcoccleveland.org/copticchurch.html

Other persecutions:

Tyranny in the face of loyalty:

When Emperor Marcianus approved the Council’s verdict and banished Dioscorus, he sent a message to the Alexandrian people informing them of this verdict and telling them that he had appointed a man by the name of Proterius to occupy his chair. He also warned them against any disobedience.69 Proterius was sent to Alexandria accompanied by imperial troops who had orders to punish all who refused to submit to him. But the Egyptians, far from being cowed, rose in rebellion, as was their custom when they felt strongly about anything. The Bishops met in an emergency council and decreed their unanimous support of Abba Dioscorus, and their excommunication of Leo and his Tomos, the Chalcedon decrees, and Proterius. To counteract this measure, the imperial troops went to each bishop alone ordering him to sign the Chalcedon decrees. The first bishop approached was Macari of Edko, who wanted to follow Abba Dioscorus to his island exile and was told by him to return to Alexandria where he was going to be martyred. Forecast came to pass when the imperial officer struck him to death upon his refusal to sign the document presented to him. His martyrdom heralded a wave of persecutions in which an estimated thirty thousand lost their lives.70 [Footnote: Book of Saints… trans. by W. Budge, vol. IV, pp. 138-40.] With the exception of a few churches forcefully taken and given over by the Emperor to the supporters of Chalcedon, all churches were closed. Proterius, mindless of the people or their feelings, proceeded to despoil the churches relegated to him and his partisans.

Source: Iris Habib el Masri, The Story of the Copts: The True Story of Christianity in Egypt, Book I, page 323; available online at: http://www.saint-mary.net/coptic_faith/TheStoryoftheCoptstheTrueStoryofChristianityinEgy.pdf


The First Martyr After The Council:

A messenger (from Constantinople) arrived at Alexandria announcing the exile of Pope Dioscorus and the appointment of an Alexandrian priest named Proterius as the patriarch of Alexandria with the approval of the Emperor and threatening anyone who disobeys. This ( royal ) patriarch who was appointed by the emperor came surrounded by soldiers willing to punish those who might disobey the Imperial command. The ruler of Alexandria, who was an agent of Constantinople, asked to hold individual meetings with the bishops, thinking that he could influence them seperately. The first bishop he met was St. Macarius of Edko who wanted to stay with the Pope in exile, but the Pope forced him to return, telling him that the crown of martyrdom was waiting for him. Indeed, when the bishop refused to submit to the ruler's orders a soldier killed him with a fatal stab, and Macarius was the first martyr of the Coptic church, martyred by Christian hands. This was an example how the Egyptian bishops, priests, abbots, monks and many laymen suffered oppression by the hands of their brethren the Chalcedonians. (page 98)

[The Council of Constantinople 533] did not provide comfort to the people of Alexandria while their legitimate Pope spent the greater time of his papacy in a prison in Constantinople. Even when Paul El-Tenaisy, the alien patriarch, died, another named Apollinarius was ordained by the emperor's command. This man entered Alexandria in the uniform of a military commander and gave his orders to the people to assemble in the church. He then took off the military clothes and put on the priestly clothes and read to them the imperial decree. At that time cries of protest were heard aloud as the alien patriarch ordered the soldiers to use force and many were martyred. Peole called that day "The Massacre"... at that time the emperor was about to depart3 (Footnote 3: Dr. Zaher Riad: Church of Alexandria Africa, 1962, p. 56). (Page 110)

Source: Fr. Tadros Malaty, Introduction to the Coptic Orthodox Church; available online at: http://www.copticchurch.org/Texts/Spirituals/Intrcopt.pdf

Peace.

[jmell]

Here is the information requested; accounting for the persecution of the Coptic Orthodox Church by the Chalcedonians under both Justinian and other pro-Chalcedonian rulers:


Peace.

Thanks, I  had just started looking for info about this

[jmell]

Most of these so-called 'skeletons' people are associating with the church are actually the conduct of the State. It was not the Church that Persecuted Heretics and Jews, but rather the Emperor or King. When forces, be they foreign or domestic, threaten the stability of the Empire the authorities have a responsibility to respond. This has been the Case with Jews, from time to time, as well as with heretical sects since the time of St. Constantine; and measures that today may be regarded as excessive were, at the time, both appropriate and necessary.

Nice way to excuse the church from blame "It's not our fault"

[GiC]

Nice way to excuse the church from blame "It's not our fault"

If you would like me to defend the Imperial Authorities I can...but I was simply pointing out that it was the secular authorities, interested in maintaining the stability of the empire and understanding that heretics disrupted society and be the focal point of treasonous ideas and activities, who most vigorously pursued dissident sects.

[Asteriktos]

The way it is being put, it makes it sound like Justinian attempted no compromises at all. Quite the contrary, he bent over backwards, and even strayed into perhaps unorthodox territory, trying to come up with a compromise formula that everyone could accept. Also, what Procopius published "in secret" amounts to little other than gossip. I've read a few books on Justinian, and not one of them gave any substantial credence to that particular work. It'd be like reading someone's FBI file and then taking everything it says as Gospel Truth. It's more like a collection of accusations than a testament of truth. I might also add that while such imperial tyrrany was definately not a good thing, I find it inconsistent that people sometimes look the other way in some cases (e.g., when Emperor Theodosius decreed who one had to be in communion with to be considered part of the Catholic Church), while crying foul in others. I'm sure others are consistent on the point though. Actually some of the conduct of Emperor Justinian (besides what has already been mentioned) is a skeleton, for example his treatment/kidnapping/arresting of the Roman Pope, among other things. Nonetheless, I don't think it's as black and white as we are making it out to be here...?

[EkhristosAnesti]

If you would like me to defend the Imperial Authorities I can...

When you shamelessly and without fear of God, attempt to defend the atrocities inspired by none other than Satan himself (i.e. mass-slaughters and persecution under the authority of Justinian & Co.) which were performed against the One Holy Universal and Apostolic Orthodox Church, with reasoning along the lines of...:

....secular authorities, interested in maintaining the stability of the empire and understanding that heretics disrupted society and be the focal point of treasonous ideas and activities, who most vigorously pursued dissident sects.

...then objectively explain why such reasoning would not also justify the mass-slaughter of Christians in general performed under the pagan imperial authorities throughout the early centuries; else be consistent and admit that the pagans had every right to shed the blood of the martyrs of the early Church.

The prayers of the Coptic martyrs be with us all, Amen.

Peace.

[Timos]

Hi, Ekhristos Anesti I'm sure you already know this but haven't mentioned it so far. I am not surprised since it would put a loop hole in your argument:

The fact that Justinian's wife Theodora was a Non-Chalcedonian Christian who suported the Coptic Patriarch (though she herself was not Coptic- she was either Syrian or Greek) and she got Justinian to build the Non-Chalcedonians a Monastery in Constantinople where monks could claim sanctuary there. Before Justinian married Theodora, he hated the Copts and other Non-Chalc. After his marriage, he felt compassion and tried hard to reconciliate the two factions.

On a side note, Theodora was originally an actress which back then was equivelant toa loose woman and it was forbidden for royalty to marry such a class. So he changed the law and married her.

Also, she was often the driving force to his splendid career...when a riot broke out in the Hippodrome between the rivaling blues and greens, he wanted to run away and hide, but she confronted him and told  him not to be as weak as a woman...err something on those lines-forgot the exact quote. Anyhow, she was a magnificent woman.

And so was the empress St. Pulcheria (who is also hated by non-chalcedonians).

BTW, I am not in any way anti-Oriental Orthodox-my grand parents were born in Egypt for heaven sake but Ekhristos Anesti, i just think that you should tone it down a bit with the whole Coptic, non chalcedonian pure faith notion. You don't need to keep your guard up all the time. One day like ROCOR, the Coptic church and the EO will be united.

[Stavro]

Timos: And so was the empress St. Pulcheria (who is also hated by non-chalcedonians).

Pulcharia started her life as a monk before breaking her vows of celibacy and committing adultry with Emperor Marcian. She tortured St.Dioscoros and together with Marcian, by the inistigation of Leo of Rome, led massacres of the Orthodox. You will have a hard time justifying the sainthood of such a person.

Paradosis:The way it is being put, it makes it sound like Justinian attempted no compromises at all. Quite the contrary, he bent over backwards, and even strayed into perhaps unorthodox territory, trying to come up with a compromise formula that everyone could accept.

Why is a person who strayed into unorthodox territory, in fact ending his life believing in the Julian heresy, among your saints ? His unorthodox ways, together with his massacres against the non-Chalcedonians hardly justify such title. In addition, whatever compromises he tried does not take from the fact that he butchered millions.

you would like me to defend the Imperial Authorities I can...but I was simply pointing out that it was the secular authorities, interested in maintaining the stability of the empire and understanding that heretics disrupted society and be the focal point of treasonous ideas and activities, who most vigorously pursued dissident sects.

I will use the same logic to justify the massacres of the Turks in Asia Minors against the Chalcedonians, for they too (the Turks) were interested in maintaining the stability of the Empire and understood that infidels such as the Pontians and Greeks disrupted the society. I find the same logic very fitting to excuse the Turks from butchering the Greeks as well, for the Greeks are infidels who were plotting against the Ottman Empire. Moreover, the crusaders of 1204 who sacked Constaninople were fighting heretics and as such, their deeds are justified.

Your argument is definitely not christian. Read Matthew 5-7 to explore christianity in depth.

[GiC]

When you shamelessly and without fear of God, attempt to defend the atrocities inspired by none other than Satan himself (i.e. mass-slaughters and persecution under the authority of Justinian & Co.) which were performed against the One Holy Universal and Apostolic Orthodox Church, with reasoning along the lines of...:

You mean Saints of the Church who acted under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit for the preservation of the Empire, Christian Governance, and the Holy Church.

...then objectively explain why such reasoning would not also justify the mass-slaughter of Christians in general performed under the pagan imperial authorities throughout the early centuries; else be consistent and admit that the pagans had every right to shed the blood of the martyrs of the early Church.

I actually have some sympathy for the pagans in that argument. The Christians were upstarts who were all of a sudden causing problems and instability in the Empire and committing acts of treason by refusing to sacrifice to the emperor, from a political point of view their actions were probably appropriate, and I'd add that they were even serving their pagan gods by their actions.

Pulcharia started her life as a monk before breaking her vows of celibacy and committing adultry with Emperor Marcian. She tortured St.Dioscoros and together with Marcian, by the inistigation of Leo of Rome, led massacres of the Orthodox. You will have a hard time justifying the sainthood of such a person.Why is a person who strayed into unorthodox territory, in fact ending his life believing in the Julian heresy, among your saints ? His unorthodox ways, together with his massacres against the non-Chalcedonians hardly justify such title. In addition, whatever compromises he tried does not take from the fact that he butchered millions.

I'm sorry you dont approve of the actions of St. Justinian, but he expanded and strengthened the boarders of the Empire, helped elevate the Church to an even higher place in society, giving her bishops more authority than they had enjoyed prior to his rule, and ushered in a Golden Age for the Empire. Both he and his wife are diserving of the title of Saint, which they have enjoyed from shortly after their deaths, regardless of your opinion of them.

I will use the same logic to justify the massacres of the Turks in Asia Minors against the Chalcedonians, for they too (the Turks) were interested in maintaining the stability of the Empire and understood that infidels such as the Pontians and Greeks disrupted the society. I find the same logic very fitting to excuse the Turks from butchering the Greeks as well, for the Greeks are infidels who were plotting against the Ottman Empire.

That by the killing of the Greeks the Turks were being Good Moslems (whatever that's good for) I will not contest, as to whether or not it made political sense? It certainly imcreased stability but did much to hurt the Turk's economic infastructure, so it's debatable.

Moreover, the crusaders of 1204 who sacked Constaninople were fighting heretics and as such, their deeds are justified.

I could answer this the same way I did concerning the persecution by the Pagans and Moslems above, but I wont since the Statements of the Latin Church herself on this issue has been different as of late, confessing it to have been a mistake by their own standards. Though this is probably quite revisionist, so are many other elements of Latin teaching, so...

[Stavro]

That by the killing of the Greeks the Turks were being Good Moslems (whatever that's good for) I will not contest

Muslims have no problem justifying their actions from their primary religious sources, but for you to justify the crimes of Justinian, Leo of Rome, Marcian, Pulcharia, Hercules and all the congregation of Chalcedonian saints is a blasphemy and hypocrisy. Justify your opinion by reconciling killing of innocent people with christians values, using the Tradition and not the Quran.

I'm sorry you dont approve of the actions of St. Justinian

No need to be sorry, for we are proud not to approve of his crimes.

but he expanded and strengthened the boarders of the Empire, helped elevate the Church to an even higher place in society, giving her bishops more authority than they had enjoyed prior to his rule, and ushered in a Golden Age for the Empire

No, he weakened the Empire to an extent that left it vulnerable to the various attacks. Before going into the political insanity of Justinian Emperor and his role in the decline of the Byzantine Empire, it is worth noting that expanding the Empire does not grant anybody the title of saints. It is very similar to the islamic view of their "Suhabah", the pioneers and eraly leaders, whose crimes are evident yet overlooked as a result of military excellence. What is the relation between military conquests and sainthood ?

Speaking about the reign of Justinian, it was a disaster from all aspects. Winning over the West without laying the foundation to perserve such victory leading to its loss in two years after his death, and securing such military victory by a humilating treaty with the Persians that destroyed the finance of the Empire, is hardly a work of a great man. His extermination of the Non-Chalcedonian dealt a fatal blow to the Empire by his dirty tactics against the "bani Hareth" and "Manazerah" kingdoms in the North of the Arabic Penninsula. They were the defense line against the Arabs, and by his destruction of both kingdoms for their rejection of the council of Chalcedon, Justinian Emperor opened the door wide open for the islamic conquests a century after.

I say this from a historical point of view. I wonder how can occupation be justified and supported by christians and extermination of whole nations be reason for sainthood ?

You mean Saints of the Church who acted under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit for the preservation of the Empire, Christian Governance, and the Holy Church.

The Holy Spirit does not move people to murder and mutilate other nations, whether these nations are believers or not. There is no such thing as christian governance, for the Bible is clear on that matter. The Church does not need the sword to be protected, a view more appreciated by persecuted congregations like the Copts and Syrians.

[Addai]

By the way has anybody studied the history of Armenia?


I recall a number of times that the Byzantines dealt less than justly with them.   Such as various political manipulations through the centuries to steal their land and territories.   And I've heard recalling the Battle of Vartanaz, where the Armenians fought to keep their Christianity (from being forceably converted to Zoroastorianism by the Persians).   I recall that the Byzantines tipped them off on their plans of revolt (because the Armenians petitioned them for help which they refused but they tipped the Persians off because they saw them as a threat).

[choirfiend]

Aaaaaaaaand Anna~

here is your skeleton in the closet. Our terrible preoccupation with arguing on the internet A huge problem for us all to overcome if we are earnestly pursuing our salvation and presenting what is real and good in Orthodoxy online.

[Addai]

Aaaaaaaaand Anna~

here is your skeleton in the closet. Our terrible preoccupation with arguing on the internet A huge problem for us all to overcome if we are earnestly pursuing our salvation and presenting what is real and good in Orthodoxy online.

But you got to admit.  ÃƒÆ’‚ The Greek Christians "might makes right" philosophy is very disturbing........


In light of the Beatitudes and such.  ÃƒÆ’‚  This is something more reminscient of Nietzche, or Machiavelli  than Jesus.

yes/no?

[GiC]

Muslims have no problem justifying their actions from their primary religious sources, but for you to justify the crimes of Justinian, Leo of Rome, Marcian, Pulcharia, Hercules and all the congregation of Chalcedonian saints is a blasphemy and hypocrisy. Justify your opinion by reconciling killing of innocent people with christians values, using the Tradition and not the Quran. ÂÂ

From a Christian Perspective, St. Paul tells the Romans:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Those who suffered the wrath of our Emperor Saints, Ordained by God, suffered because they unlawfully despised the laws and decrees of the Empire; as for those who sought aid from foreign despots, we can add treason to the list of their crimes.

Before going into the political insanity of Justinian Emperor and his role in the decline of the Byzantine Empire, it is worth noting that expanding the Empire does not grant anybody the title of saints. It is very similar to the islamic view of their "Suhabah", the pioneers and eraly leaders, whose crimes are evident yet overlooked as a result of military excellence. What is the relation between military conquests and sainthood ?

More than expand the borders of the Empire (which also meant expanding the influence of the Orthodox Church, and hence allowing her apostolic mission to reach to more people), he was very generous to the Church with gifts of Land, Wealth, and Churches including Hagia Sophia, and he in his codefication of Roman Law and the subsequent Imperial Constitutions he increased teh Authority and Influence of the Church, giving bishops Powers they had not previously enjoyed. He Strengthened both Empire and Church and was a servant to both, for these many reasons he is more than diserving of the title of Saint.

Speaking about the reign of Justinian, it was a disaster from all aspects. Winning over the West without laying the foundation to perserve such victory leading to its loss in two years after his death, and securing such military victory by a humilating treaty with the Persians that destroyed the finance of the Empire, is hardly a work of a great man. His extermination of the Non-Chalcedonian dealt a fatal blow to the Empire by his dirty tactics against the "bani Hareth" and "Manazerah" kingdoms in the North of the Arabic Penninsula. They were the defense line against the Arabs, and by his destruction of both kingdoms for their rejection of the council of Chalcedon, Justinian Emperor opened the door wide open for the islamic conquests a century after.

St. Justinian did not lose but gain land for the Empire, he subdued the Barbarians, defeated neighboring enemies (Including the Non-Chalcedonian kingdoms who tried to undermind the influence of and loyality to the Imperial Authority amongst those who had rejected the Fourth Oecumenical Synod). The fact that lesser men were unable to hold on to the advances that St. Justinian made does not diminish the greatness of his accomplishemnts. Just as the Accomplishments of Alexander the Great were indeed magnificant, even if his generals could not maintain them after his death.

I say this from a historical point of view. I wonder how can occupation be justified and supported by christians and extermination of whole nations be reason for sainthood ?
The Holy Spirit does not move people to murder and mutilate other nations, whether these nations are believers or not.

The several Emperors had a duty to Protect the Empire and their Subjects from threats External and Internal...be it a Foreign Invasion or Political Instability or Heresy.

[GiC]

But you got to admit.  ÃƒÆ’‚ The Greek Christians "might makes right" philosophy is very disturbing........


In light of the Beatitudes and such.  ÃƒÆ’‚  This is something more reminscient of Nietzche, or Machiavelli  than Jesus.

yes/no?

Might does not make Right, but Right is justified in using Might to protect itself.

[alexp4uni]

I just realized what this comment makes it out to be: Dominionism

[alexp4uni]

In reference to this quote

Might does not make Right, but Right is justified in using Might to protect itself.

[GiC]

I just realized what this comment makes it out to be: Dominionism

'Synergy' between Church and State would be a more accurate term.

[Keble]

Might does not make Right, but Right is justified in using Might to protect itself.

Ummmm.... Turn the other cheek?

[GiC]

Ummmm.... Turn the other cheek?

To turn your cheek in your personal relations with other humans shows moral fortitude, turning your neighbour's cheek for him, or turning the cheek of your nation, is Dereliction of Duty and Cowardice. Furthermore, if we take your argument literally, government officials who prosecute murderers and theives are some how guilty of some immorality on that account (see my reference to the Epistle to the Romans).

[Stavro]

Please let not twist the scripture in order to justify the crimes of the church of Constantinople and its unholy Emperors. To cite the epistles of St.Paul to serve as a justification for murder and massacres is outrageous, implying that such a great saint actually approves of such crimes and uses theology to serve hypocrisy.

Your understanding of scripture is very elementary, as your approach to scripture is flawed. You treat christianity as an ideology and not as the truth, and your interpretation shows its inferiority by defending sin to the extent that makes you look igonrant.

Do you approve of the massacres of the Greeks ? With your flawed intepretation, I the atrocities of the Turks against the inhabitants of Asia Minor and Greece are very much justified, for they too are the hand of God and His messangers to fulfill his commandments. Try to appeal to Tradition to understand the scripture, and it will help you a great deal become a christian.

'Synergy' between Church and State would be a more accurate term.

Hypocrisy is the true expression for the state of a Church supporting a butcher like Justinian and canonizing him among its saints. Yet, with Leo of Rome being called the Great and Maximos being viewed as a Confessor in your Church, it would not surprise me much if criminals like Justinian or even Hitler are among your congregation of saints.

Might does not make Right, but Right is justified in using Might to protect itself.

Be specific. Protect what exactly ? The Church is protected by God and by His mighty hand and not by the plans of men or by the Emperor hand. There is no difference between Justinian and Diocletian, with the latter being of better personal attributes. "Cursed is he who reply on the arm of man".

The problem is not so much in your approach but more in your experience, for the EO church has always been protected by an Emperor and by the State, and in the process has made enormous concessions in the faith to accomodate the wishes of Emperors and their political ambitions. It is not a surprise that Christianity ceased to exist in Asia Minor altogther when your Church lost the protection of the Emperors and its weakness was exposed.

The fact that the EO churches are Emperial churches, not apostolic ones, drives Eo to excuse the crimes of EO Church Fathers. The fact that it was an Emperor, and not Christ, who leads the Church motivates such attitude.

The several Emperors had a duty to Protect the Empire and their Subjects from threats External and Internal...be it a Foreign Invasion or Political Instability or Heresy.

The only act of protecting against heresy is when Justinian summoned the 5th council to reject CHalcedon and the heresy of the Three Chapters that Chalcedon introduced into the Church. I give him that.
He caused the greatest instability and was the cause of the decline of the Empire. How can massacres be a reason for stability ?

He ended his life a heretic himself, believing in the Julian heresy. So not only a butcher, he was a heretic.

as for those who sought aid from foreign despots, we can add treason to the list of their crimes.

Fine Hypocrisy. You defend occupation by calling the struggle against the occupier "treason". How would you then evaluate the liberation of the Greeks from the hands of the Turks in 1821 and there constant connections and foreign aid they received from the russians and the English ?

In addition, because of your ignorance, you try to portray the struggle as a political one. The martyrs on the Orthodox side, butchered by your saints like Leo of Rome, Justinian, Hercules , Maximos, and others died defending their faith and not defending occupation, although it would have been their natural right to do so.

Again, you cannot exist without the protection of the sword, yet the faithful, under 2000 years of persecution, have flourished. On equal grounds, without the heavy hand of Emperors, the Chalcedonians vanished from Egypt and Syria, Palestine and North Africa.

He Strengthened both Empire and Church and was a servant to both, for these many reasons he is more than diserving of the title of Saint.

He did neither, he weakened the State to the extent that he had to sucuumb to a very humilating treaty with the Persians and emptied the treasures of the Empire. Are these grounds for making somebody a saint ?

You will not escape the fact that he was a butcher just like Ghengis Khan was. He was also a heretic, added the Julianist heresy to the other heresy he was baptized in, and persecuted the men of God.

Including the Non-Chalcedonian kingdoms who tried to undermind the influence of and loyality to the Imperial Authority amongst those who had rejected the Fourth Oecumenical Synod

As such, the Turks are justifed in killing the Greeks, the Communists in killing the Russian christians, for they too defied the State authorities. You are not a christian, but a racist nationalist just like the Nazis.

choirfriend: In light of the Beatitudes and such.   ÃƒÆ’‚ This is something more reminscient of Nietzche, or Machiavelli  than Jesus.

YES.

[Asteriktos]

Why is a person who strayed into unorthodox territory, in fact ending his life believing in the Julian heresy, among your saints ? His unorthodox ways, together with his massacres against the non-Chalcedonians hardly justify such title. In addition, whatever compromises he tried does not take from the fact that he butchered millions.

This again sounds more like propaganda that someone read, rather than an attempt at a discussion. An absurd claim, like that he butchered "millions," is a good give away. The entire population (which wasn't more than a few tens of millions) of that part of the world had been in decline for centuries by the time Justinian's reign ruled around. What's more, Justinian was one of the most active and successful Emperors militarily, always trying to take back lands in Italy, Europe, or Northern Africa (his enemy wasn't non-Chalcedonians), or defending against Persian forces; this despite the fact that his army was, relatively speaking, pretty small (considering how much he was doing). And yet in all this, he found the time to exterminate up to 10% of the population, still maintain his reputation as a pious Christian, still maintain the economy (which was primarily agricultural... no people to work the land, no economy), and still maintain something resembling a tax flow. Um.... ok. 

[Timos]

Hi. I have read in Non-Chalcedonian articles that Pulcheria had tore the beard of Dioscoros and that she had knocked out his teeth....

From the EO side I read a complete biography on her written by a former First Lady of Greece and according to this source...Pulcheria lived an austere life and made the Imperial Palace as if it were a monastery but she never gave herself to the vows of monasticism. Latero n she was wed to the Emperor-not commited adultery.

[EkhristosAnesti]

EkhristosAnesti said:
...then objectively explain why such reasoning would not also justify the mass-slaughter of Christians in general performed under the pagan imperial authorities throughout the early centuries; else be consistent and admit that the pagans had every right to shed the blood of the martyrs of the early Church.

GiC said in response:
I actually have some sympathy for the pagans in that argument. The Christians were upstarts who were all of a sudden causing problems and instability in the Empire and committing acts of treason by refusing to sacrifice to the emperor, from a political point of view their actions were probably appropriate, and I'd add that they were even serving their pagan gods by their actions.

I’m glad you’re objective enough to concede to the fact that in attempting to defend and justify the crimes committed against The One Universal and Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church of God, that you must necessarily place your own saints on the same level as blood-thirsty and heartless pagans who worshipped rocks. Thank you for your honesty.

You mean Saints of the Church who acted under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit for the preservation of the Empire, Christian Governance, and the Holy Church.

I have never heard such blatant blasphemy in my life; the Bridegrooms’ Holy Spirit inspiring the destruction of His own beloved Bride…This thought is even more perverse than that of Islamic terrorists who believe that God prescribes the death of the kaffirs. Furthermore, do not even dare to bring the Holy Church into this; your leaders had no allegiance to God or true doctrine, else they wouldn’t have compromised true doctrine for the sake of politics; your leaders did not worship Christ, they worshipped the See of Constantinople, the birthplace of many a heresy, and this greed, envy, and hatred of theirs, alone instigated these massacres. Evil begets Evil. The only work of the Holy Spirit evident throughout these events is seen in a) The mercy He showed upon you when He opened your eyes to the errors of Chalcedon and gave you opportunity to correct, abrogate, and qualify this failed council via the subsequent councils and b) the steadfast faith, endurance, perseverance and ultimate survival and victory of the Oriental Orthodox Church and the miracles performed through her to aid her in the process. Copts flourished and dominated Egypt through faith; the Chalcedonians attempt to forcefully impose theirÂÂ decrees upon us were made in vain, for as our great father once said: "If God is for us, who can be against us?"

You could neither defeat us by the sword, nor even by polemics; I’ve just started to skim through Meyendorff’s Christ in Eastern Thought and even he concedes to the fact that the Chalcedonians were theologically impotent in the face of Greats like the zealous and ascetic St Timothy Aurelus of Alexandria, St Severus of Antioch and St Philoxenus of Mabbogh.

Including the Non-Chalcedonian kingdoms who tried to undermind the influence of and loyality to the Imperial Authority amongst those who had rejected the Fourth Oecumenical Synod

The allegiance of the non-Chalcedonians was to God, and hence The Holy Orthodox tradition which they shed their blood for. Again, your reasoning would have us submit, not only to false council decrees in compromise of true Orthodoxy, but also to false pagan worship in compromise of true Christianity, as you have already implicitly admitted. Again we emphasize the desperation of your futile agenda which leads you to regress to the sort of reasoning which would qualify you as a brilliant spokesperson on behalf of pagan authorities in the face of rebellious steadfast Christians. Your out of context interpretation of St Paul’s passage, would (if you were to be consistent) have us condemn all the martyrs of the Church, even your own, who refused to submit to the pagan authorities orders that they forsake Christ and worship their national pagan gods. Why does the Church ask for the intercession of these martyrs and venerate them, and praise them for their defying pagan authorities in the name of Christ, when according to you, St Paul is essentially up there condemning them for disobeying his epistle when they refused to forsake Christ, and burn incense in front of rocks?

Peace.

[Stavro]

Paradosis,

I am commenting on your words that Justinian strayed in unorthdoox territory, so what is your whole point ? You are the one who said it, your very own words, you confessed it, and it is a legit question to ask what an unorthodox man (by your own admission) is doing among your saints.

If you want to dispute the number of martyrs, go ahead. I find it only fitting to a Chalcedonian to try to cover the crimes of your own "Church fathers'' and your saints. It does not matter to me how much they killed, but the estimation that they are millions is not exaggerated. The alleged decline in population is a very silly claim, unsubstantiated and not logical. The East was the flourishing part of the Empire, both economically and theologically, so there were no immigration to other parts , for example, or any disease that took the life of a considerable portion of the population.

And as a further proof, when the muslims invaded the non-Chalcedonian territories, they collected the Gezia (tribute) from men above 20 years. In Egypt alone, there were 6 million tribute payers, according to the offical letters of Amr Ibn El-Ass to the Khalif, recorded in Makresi, Ibn Khaledon and other arabic sources. This would make the population in Egypt alone, with the addition of the women and youth below 20 years, about 25 million. This is the minimum number in Egypt in thois time, and we did not count the inhabitant of Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, North Africa, .... .

As for the number of martyrs, millions is not an exaggeration, for the martyrs of Samanod and Bahansa and the Kalamon city in Egypt in his reign reached 50 thousand  according to the historians such as Saweres ibn Mukafa and ancient coptic manuscripts in Ashmonin, Egypt. Add the martyrs in the time of Marcian ( 300 thousands) and Hercules (whose chief advisor in his court was Maximos of Constantinople), you end up with millions. We did not count ALexandria, Luxor, Fayoum, Damanhour, Farma and other parts of Egypt and did not include the martyrs of Syria and Palestine.

This again sounds more like propaganda that someone read, rather than an attempt at a discussion.

I did not see an attempt for discussion on your part. The issue at hand is the following:
Did your Emperors, saints or whatever you label them, Justinian among them, kill non-Chalcedonians ? Is it a YES or NO ?

Latero n she was wed to the Emperor-not commited adultery

A nun which breaks her vows does not receive the holy sacrament in the Church, and if she does by her imperial power , the sacrament is void and she is still an adultress.

Pulcheria lived an austere life and made the Imperial Palace as if it were a monastery but she never gave herself to the vows of monasticism.

She was a nun and took the vow of virginity when she was still a princess, according to Socrates, and then entered the monastic life (Mansi, loc. cit., V, 987 sq) after her support to the Nestorian party failed during the reign of the Theodosius.

She tortured St.Dioscoros and murdered him in exile to add to her crimes, and ordered the execution of 300,000 christian in Alexandria who refused to succumb to a puppet Patriarch.

[Elisha]

Anna,
In case you haven't figured it out, the Eastern Orthodox Churches have NOT been in Communion with the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Coptic, Eritrean, Ethiopian, Armenian and some others) since mid-4th century (or is it the 5th?). 

[GiC]

Please let not twist the scripture in order to justify the crimes of the church of Constantinople and its unholy Emperors. To cite the epistles of St.Paul to serve as a justification for murder and massacres is outrageous, implying that such a great saint actually approves of such crimes and uses theology to serve hypocrisy.

Your understanding of scripture is very elementary, as your approach to scripture is flawed. You treat christianity as an ideology and not as the truth, and your interpretation shows its inferiority by defending sin to the extent that makes you look igonrant.

I'm using St. Paul to Justify the enforcing of Godly Laws as promulgated by our Saintly Emperors, most August, and Patriarchs, Beloved of God.

Do you approve of the massacres of the Greeks ? With your flawed intepretation, I the atrocities of the Turks against the inhabitants of Asia Minor and Greece are very much justified, for they too are the hand of God and His messangers to fulfill his commandments. Try to appeal to Tradition to understand the scripture, and it will help you a great deal become a christian.

I can understand the Turks' posistion, as I can the Greeks'. Since it is the Greeks who were the Christians I support them, but I can see where the turks are coming from, and their justification before their laws.

Hypocrisy is the true expression for the state of a Church supporting a butcher like Justinian and canonizing him among its saints. Yet, with Leo of Rome being called the Great and Maximos being viewed as a Confessor in your Church, it would not surprise me much if criminals like Justinian or even Hitler are among your congregation of saints.

St. Justinian, St. Leo the Great, and St. Maximos the Confessor are regarded as highly as they are, especially the latter two, because of their Defence of Orthodox Theology against the lies of Heresy.

Be specific. Protect what exactly ? The Church is protected by God and by His mighty hand and not by the plans of men or by the Emperor hand. There is no difference between Justinian and Diocletian, with the latter being of better personal attributes. "Cursed is he who reply on the arm of man".

Justinian Protected the Empire, like any good Emperor does, and in doing so protected the Church; I've already given my sympathies for Diocletian, who was truly a great amongst the Pagan Emperors, and who's greatest error was not the persecution of the Christians, but his failure to Embrace the Christian Faith, the persecutions were merely a result of such a failure...St. Justinian made no such error.

The problem is not so much in your approach but more in your experience, for the EO church has always been protected by an Emperor and by the State, and in the process has made enormous concessions in the faith to accomodate the wishes of Emperors and their political ambitions.

And the Emperors also made concessions to teh Church...as I said before there was a Synergy between the Two, resulting in the Glory of God.

It is not a surprise that Christianity ceased to exist in Asia Minor altogther when your Church lost the protection of the Emperors and its weakness was exposed.

Actually Christianity diminished in Asia Minor when the Greek Population was forcibly removed.

The fact that the EO churches are Emperial churches, not apostolic ones, drives Eo to excuse the crimes of EO Church Fathers. The fact that it was an Emperor, and not Christ, who leads the Church motivates such attitude.

The Emperor, like the Bishop, was a Minister of Christ, but for things temporal instead of things spiritual, He and the Empire Served Christ, and hemself conducted themself for the Glory of God.

The only act of protecting against heresy is when Justinian summoned the 5th council to reject CHalcedon and the heresy of the Three Chapters that Chalcedon introduced into the Church. I give him that.

Constantinople 553 did nothing but reaffirm what Chalcedon had decreed, but in Summoning the Synod the Great Dogmas of Chalcedon were again Proclaimed to the World, and hence the Faith was preserved and advanced against the Heretics who would ignore or twist the Fourth of the Oecumenical Synods.

He caused the greatest instability and was the cause of the decline of the Empire. How can massacres be a reason for stability ?

But the Accomplishments of his reign show otherwise. You seek to place the blame for the failures of his successors on his shoulders, where it does not belong.

He ended his life a heretic himself, believing in the Julian heresy. So not only a butcher, he was a heretic.

First, what exactly did he say that you consider heretical? Secondly, I was unaware that Julianism anathematized? Though I may be mistaken, what synod Anathematized it?

Fine Hypocrisy. You defend occupation by calling the struggle against the occupier "treason". How would you then evaluate the liberation of the Greeks from the hands of the Turks in 1821 and there constant connections and foreign aid they received from the russians and the English ?

There is no doubt that the Greek Revolution was treason against the Ottomans, to claim it was otherwise would be foolish. As to whether or not it was Justified, that's a good Question. Is Treason ever morally Justified? There may be some justification insofar as it was against a Moslem ruler, but then again there may not be? The Patriarchate of Constantinople could be regarded as an Imperial, and hence legitimate governmental, authority; but if I recall properly he opposed the revolution.

But in either case, neither I, nor I believe anyone else, would claim that the Turkish soldiers who went to try and put the rebellion down were guilty of any immoral action on account of their fighting against the Greeks, the true sin of the Turks was their failure to Convert to Christianity. Neither would I see any immorality in Justinian making war on his enemies or enforcing the laws of the Empire, especially as he remained in the Orthodox Faith.

In addition, because of your ignorance, you try to portray the struggle as a political one. The martyrs on the Orthodox side, butchered by your saints like Leo of Rome, Justinian, Hercules , Maximos, and others died defending their faith and not defending occupation, although it would have been their natural right to do so.

If the arguments of the Non-Chalcedonians on this board are to be believed and the 'schism' was entirely political, they they died defending the political posistion of their illegitimate patriarch. If the fathers of both the Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonian Church are to be believed, they died as Heretics.

Again, you cannot exist without the protection of the sword, yet the faithful, under 2000 years of persecution, have flourished. On equal grounds, without the heavy hand of Emperors, the Chalcedonians vanished from Egypt and Syria, Palestine and North Africa.

Your survived by selling out the Empire to the Moslems; and it Should be noted that the Orthodox Church yet survives in those Places, and still maintains considerable influence despite several invasions and occupations over the centuries.

[GiC]

I’m glad you’re objective enough to concede to the fact that in attempting to defend and justify the crimes committed against The One Universal and Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church of God, that you must necessarily place your own saints on the same level as blood-thirsty and heartless pagans who worshipped rocks. Thank you for your honesty.

The Pagans were Educated, Intelligent, and Cultured people; their fault did not lie in their system of governance (well, with a possible exception of their ideas about democracy and such, but that's another issue) but rather with their failure to convert to the Orthodox Faith.

I have never heard such blatant blasphemy in my life...

Ah, my Idea that the Holy Spirit Guided the Saints of the Church...whatever was I thinking?

Furthermore, do not even dare to bring the Holy Church into this; your leaders had no allegiance to God or true doctrine, else they wouldn’t have compromised true doctrine for the sake of politics; your leaders did not worship Christ, they worshipped the See of Constantinople...

If I am to take your version of the story that the separation was a Schism, and not doctrinal in nature, then there does seem to be politics involved. But I submit to you that they are not the Politics of Constantinople who was only interested in preserving the Faith, but rather Politics in Alexandria, who was jealous to have not received the posistion of Oecumenical Patriarch. In Response to the Entire World supporting Constantinople, Alexandria, rather than confess in humility the errors of her ways, schismed and tore assunder the body of Christ. And has been to this day too proud to confess her errors and reenter the Communion of the Holy Church of Christ.

The only work of the Holy Spirit evident throughout these events is seen in a) The mercy He showed upon you when He opened your eyes to the errors of Chalcedon and gave you opportunity to correct, abrogate, and qualify this failed council via the subsequent councils and b) the steadfast faith, endurance, perseverance and ultimate survival and victory of the Oriental Orthodox Church and the miracles performed through her to aid her in the process. Copts flourished and dominated Egypt through faith; the Chalcedonians attempt to forcefully impose their decrees upon us were made in vain, for as our great father once said: "If God is for us, who can be against us?"

Chalcedon did not need to be further (or re-) defined, nor was it, by Constantinople II. It professed the Same Faith that Chalcedon had decreed with Abundant Clarity, and then it addressed new heresies that had arisen trying to undermine the Fourth Oecumenical Synod, as Constantinople I had addressed the heresies that tried to undermine Nicea. But, of course, as we are seeing here, the theological details are insignificant inlight of 1550 years of history.

The allegiance of the non-Chalcedonians was to God, and hence The Holy Orthodox tradition which they shed their blood for. Again, your reasoning would have us submit, not only to false council decrees in compromise of true Orthodoxy, but also to false pagan worship in compromise of true Christianity...

The Holy Matryrs died for the Faith of the Orthodox, if your arguments are to be believed, those who suffered the righteous wrath of the Imperial Authority died to sustain a Schism in the Church and advance a treasonous disdain for the Empire as well as the Imperial and Oecumenical See.

[Asteriktos]

I'm glad our Churches "believe the same thing," and are just seperated for no important reasons in particular, otherwise someone might mistake all this arguing for actual and substantial disagreement!ÂÂ  

Someone who planned on naming his child Justinian if it had been a boy,

Justin

[Addai]

Your survived by selling out the Empire to the Moslems; and it Should be noted that the Orthodox Church yet survives in those Places, and still maintains considerable influence despite several invasions and occupations over the centuries.

And did not the EO sell out during the time of the Bolshevicks?




SERGIANISM AS AN ECCLESIOLOGICAL HERESY

Vladimir Moss

      On July 16/29, 1927, the deputy of the locum tenens of Russian patriarchal throne, Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), issued his infamous Declaration', in which he more or less unconditionally placed the Russian Church in submission to the God-hating atheists, declaring the joys of the Soviet state to be the Churchs joys and the States sorrows the Churchs sorrows. This act was evaluated from several points of view by the confessors of the faith. Some defined it as apostasy in time of persecution (Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky); Hieromartyr Archbishop Victor of Glazov); others as a canonical transgression or usurpation of the rights of the canonical first hierarch (Hieromartyr Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan); others as schism (Hieromartyr Bishop Alexis of Voronezh); still others as ecclesiological heresy (Hieromartyr Archbishops Demetrius of Gdov and Nicholas of Suzdal).