OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 12:39:20 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Will the OO and EO Reunite?  (Read 26416 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #180 on: September 01, 2005, 01:22:26 PM »

Yes, I stand by the fact that EO's lack humility in this issue.

I should have known you know nothing about America.

I should have known they're only insults when they come from the mouth (or keyboard) of the godless Chalcedonians.  Because as everyone knows, everything that a non-Chalcedonian does is holy and pure by definition while everything that a Chalcedonian does is profane and defiled, also by definition.  So much so, in fact, that when EO's are acting in an uncanonical fashion, its a problem, but it will automatically become okay when the OO's start doing it, too.

Puh-lease.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,711


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


« Reply #181 on: September 01, 2005, 02:13:03 PM »

I went back to read that thread again, hopefully changing my view.ÂÂ  It was only you and GiC who either lack humility or like to have a discussion for the sake of discussion, considering that both of you were arguing whether the EP or the MP should take care of America.

Forgive me for extending the judgment to all EO's.

As for your last comment, let me restate my confusion at this "phyletism" situation.ÂÂ  Not only have I proven that Sts. Peter and Paul were phyletists, under ozgeorge's definition, but also that the EO bishops who continue to commit phyletism seem to not take phyletism as seriously as ozgeorge all of a sudden brought up when I mentioned there will be two Alexandrian popes.

Therefore, I wish you look at this last statement as a confusion from an OO who perhaps is missing something about the whole EO phyletism issue.

God bless you.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2005, 02:14:29 PM by minasoliman » Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #182 on: September 01, 2005, 07:32:20 PM »

.ÂÂ  Not only have I proven that Sts. Peter and Paul were phyletists,
You haven't proved squat.
Let's see what the "Apostle to the Gentiles" actually says about himself:
"Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." (1 Cor 9:19-23)

Strange that the "Apostle to the Gentiles" should be trying to win over the Jews, isn't it? Doesn't he realise that you have "proven" that the Jews are the ethnic juristiction of St. Peter? Or is this assertion merely based on yet more non-Chalcedon "proof" of the "reality" of things?

under ozgeorge's definition,
'Taint my definition. the source is, I repeat: "Course of Canon Law — Appendix VI — canonical glossary, By Grigorios Papathomas, Paris 1995". What authority have you appealed to outside of your own interpretations?

but also that the EO bishops who continue to commit phyletism seem to not take phyletism as seriously as ozgeorge all of a sudden brought up when I mentioned there will be two Alexandrian popes.
I don't know how many times you need to be told that the situation is most definitely seen to be uncanonical. Your "solution" seems to be to create yet another uncanonical situation- yet more OO "Applied Logic".
« Last Edit: September 01, 2005, 09:04:20 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,711


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


« Reply #183 on: September 01, 2005, 09:16:33 PM »

You still haven't proven how those verses I provided aren't phyletism.ÂÂ  They are very clear.

The verse you provided teaches that we are a servant for all and he limits himself to no one and teaches how one can attract converts.ÂÂ  HOWEVER, it is agreed among the apostles that he and Barnabas may concentrate most on the Gentiles.ÂÂ  I don't see how that is not phyletism.

God bless.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2005, 09:17:26 PM by minasoliman » Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #184 on: September 01, 2005, 09:23:01 PM »

You still haven't proven how those verses I provided aren't phyletism.ÂÂ  They are very clear.
You ain't listening my friend. I have already shown you that the Churches throughout Asia Minor and what is now Greece were established around the Jewish Diaspora. They were not Churches of Gentiles- they were Churches of Gentiles and Jews, and they were established by S. Paul.

What you want is a Church for the Copts aqnd a Church for the non-Copts in the same territory- set up on the same principles as the "Dutch Reformed Church".
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,711


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


« Reply #185 on: September 01, 2005, 09:26:53 PM »

Quote
You ain't listening my friend. I have already shown you that the Churches throughout Asia Minor and what is now Greece were established around the Jewish Diaspora. They were not Churches of Gentiles- they were Churches of Gentiles and Jews, and they were established by S. Paul.

They are presently churches of gentiles and jews, but you can't escape the Galatians verse.  Sooner or later, they were united, but initially, it was very clear the Apostles did agree on a phyletic way of spreading the Word.

God bless.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #186 on: September 01, 2005, 10:51:52 PM »

They are presently churches of gentiles and jews,
Are you saying that they weren't in Apostolic times?

but you can't escape the Galatians verse.ÂÂ
Haven't you 'conveniently' skipped the bit in Galatians where St. Paul says that St. Peter was wrong on this issue when he came to Antioch and said so to his face?
"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray." (Galatians 2 11:13). The issue was not Jews vs. Gentiles, but Christians who believed you had to be circumcised to be Christian (The "Judaizers") vs. those who held they did not need to be circumcised. Here we have one of the first heresies and what St. Paul calls hypocrisy in the Church, and you wish to hold it up as a model for how the Church should function today.

Sooner or later, they were united,
I'm not even going to start telling you what's wrong with this (let alone grammatically).

but initially, it was very clear the Apostles did agree on a phyletic way of spreading the Word.
Perhaps clear to you. As for the rest of humanity, I don't think so.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2005, 10:55:55 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,711


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


« Reply #187 on: September 01, 2005, 10:59:48 PM »

He opposed him because of his hypocrisy, in that he ate with Gentiles, but when around the circumcised, he refrained from being with the Gentiles.  He was clearly a "racist" here.  Again, this doesn't explain the verses before that.  The verses before that still sounds like phyletism to me, an endorsement of phyletism rather.

God bless.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,350


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


WWW
« Reply #188 on: September 02, 2005, 09:43:46 AM »

Wow.  Among all who call upon the Name of Christ, we Orthodox are the most pitiful.  If OO and EO cannot be united in anything else, we can at least be one in this regard. 
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
SaintShenouti
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 224


« Reply #189 on: September 02, 2005, 10:26:11 AM »

Somewhat reminiscent of Subdn. Theodore and Linus.  Ah, how I miss those days.

It seems there is a kind of ethnocentric focus here.  Is it really essential, other than the argument of whether the gentiles and Jews were initially together during the Pauline era early church, to discuss such things?  If it is a matter of pride in heritage, then I would say yes, St. Athanasius the Great was indeed a native Egyptian (as most scholars agree Grin), but what does this really accomplish?  It's the principle, not necessarily the tradition that decorates, that truly makes a difference, lest we become as the Pharisees.

The day was made for man, not man for the day.  Seize it!

I should like to imagine that the Jews and gentiles during the early church were at first wary of the other respective group, but later, as persecution increased, the differences were set aside and Christian concept of loving one's neighbor was put to practice.

By the way, Papa Abba Shenouda III has completed the consecration of the Coptic Orthodox monastery at Corpus Christi, Texas.  It used to be the site of an old Roman Catholic abbey, but was set for sale and bought by the Southern US Diocese under H.G. Bishop Youssef.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2005, 10:27:52 AM by SaintShenouti » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,711


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


« Reply #190 on: September 05, 2005, 10:47:56 PM »

Wow.ÂÂ  Among all who call upon the Name of Christ, we Orthodox are the most pitiful.ÂÂ  If OO and EO cannot be united in anything else, we can at least be one in this regard.ÂÂ  

Hello, I'm back.

Dearest Mor Ephrem,

I really don't know how hard that one little issue of phyletism was hard to agree upon.  I just feel that amidst irrefutable proof of our fathers' non-heretical status, there still has to be some stupid reason that we can't unite.  To argue on something that seems to some to be unimportant shows how much there are some who don't even want a union.

Something however that still allows me to be hopeful on this reunion.  Even much before the EO-OO talks, the two Alexandrian popes had great relationships, something that makes me love and hope for true Orthodox brotherhood.

From the 1965 OO Council of Addis Ababa, HH Saint Pope Kyrillos the sixth writes:

Quote
A figure symbolic of this revival is that of Pope Cyril IV.  In 1853, he established the first modern Coptic schools among which was the first Egyptian girls' school.  He also founded a printing press which was the second national press in the country, the first having been erected by the government at an earlier date.  Pope Cyril IV entertained very friendly relations with other Churches, to such an extent that when the Greek Patriarch in Egypt had to absent himself for a long time outside the country, he left his Church under the guidance of the Coptic Patriarch.

It is something like this that makes me love the unity we have with one another.  It echoes the side-by-side brotherly love and aid Sts. Peter and Paul had for one another even though they had specific congregations to serve.  To have two Alexandrian popes is not racist, although phyletist like Sts. Peter and Paul practiced, but all the more helpful for an even greater unity ahead as part of the love both Orthodox Alexandrian Popes have for one another.

God bless.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,081


"My god is greater."


« Reply #191 on: January 04, 2010, 01:15:03 PM »

I think SNB presents the most reasonable solution to this problem, and one I have suggested elsewhere a long time ago:

Quote
The schism resulting from various, complex, factors at Chalcedon is a schism that makes it necessary to supercede it in a truly pan-Orthodox council, at which the anathemas are lifted and a satisfactory solution is found that allows both expressions of the one Orthodox truth.


However, by virtue of such a superseding Council, the previously acknowledged Ecumenicity of Chalcedon by the Eastern Church would necessarily, though implicitly, be abandoned.

Peace.

As has been made clear here, many times: if the non-Chalcedonians are willing to accept Chalcedon, it is only on the basis of their belief that we re-interpreted Chalcedon after the fact. In other words, Chalcedon originally had Nestorian leanings which were corrected by later Church teaching (e.g. the 5th Ecumenical Council). So the EO would have to tacitly accept that the Church lapsed into error or crypto-Nestorianism for a while.

Isn't it clear enough from this that we don't share the same faith?

Another thing: the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which affirms not only two natures, but two wills and two energies is hardly ever discussed. We Orthodox accept this council as a logical follow-up to Chalcedon; therefore, if the Copts don't accept this council (and I know at least some of them don't), they don't really accept Chalcedon either, ergo, we don't have the same faith. In fact, the non-Chalcedonians had agreed to monoenergism in in the 7th century, in various agreements with the (monothelite) Byzantine emperor. 
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #192 on: January 04, 2010, 04:24:49 PM »

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many EO there are compared to OO?
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #193 on: January 04, 2010, 04:56:31 PM »

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many EO there are compared to OO?

While not an official number, I'll guess a ba-gillion more.

Seriously, I know that there are at least three times as many EO than OO, but probably much more than that.  The EO world estimates are between 200 and 300 million members (quite a margin of error!).  I don't know about OO.
Logged
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #194 on: January 04, 2010, 05:07:59 PM »

I don't know about OO.

I think it's around the 70million mark, with well over half of those belonging to the Ethiopian Church.
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,832


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #195 on: January 04, 2010, 09:09:34 PM »

Another thing: the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which affirms not only two natures, but two wills and two energies is hardly ever discussed. We Orthodox accept this council as a logical follow-up to Chalcedon; therefore, if the Copts don't accept this council (and I know at least some of them don't), they don't really accept Chalcedon either, ergo, we don't have the same faith. In fact, the non-Chalcedonians had agreed to monoenergism in in the 7th century, in various agreements with the (monothelite) Byzantine emperor. 


I know this has been discussed before here, but I can't point to any particular threads.  You may want to do a search.  Some of the threads may be in the private forums, which is where Christological debates usually go.  You may want to pm Fr. Chris and ask him to let you into the private forums, since you seem to be interested in this sort of thing.

I actually don't know much about your sixth council, but I have heard that the OO's don't have a problem with the substance of what was decided there, although we of course use different language.  Also, from what I understand, that council was not held because of issues that existed in the OO Church, but rather had to do with a controversy that existed among the Chalcedonians. 
Logged

Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,832


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #196 on: January 04, 2010, 09:13:20 PM »

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many EO there are compared to OO?

This was discussed here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24144.0.html#top
Logged

Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,407


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #197 on: January 05, 2010, 02:20:49 AM »

I am very naive and ignorant about these matters, but it seems to me that the EO Churches have no reason not to simply affirm the pre-Chalcedonion Christological formulation. What was affirmed about Our Lord's nature in the first three councils is what all Orthodox Christians believe: i.e., Our Lord is fully God and fully man without separation, division, or confusion. To go further than this and declare a duality of nature is superfluous and provides the potential for an erroneous understanding of Christ's work, such as the misguided notion that He performed certain acts as a man and other acts as God.

If the EO Churches will recognize pre-Chalcedonian Christological formulation as wholly sound and wholly sufficient, then the doctrines and decisions of the subsequent ecumenical councils can still be reassessed and probably affirmed by all. But I see no reason why the EO Churches can't simply affirm the sound Christology of the first three ecumenical councils.

Another thing to consider: the council of Chalcedon and those thereafter are not really "ecumenical," because they weren't affirmed by all the Orthodox Churches.  

But let's pray for wisdom and humility to prevail all around. I am optimistic and hopeful, because I know that nothing is too difficult for God. Smiley


Selam
 
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 02:22:17 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus » Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #198 on: January 05, 2010, 02:35:15 AM »

I am very naive and ignorant about these matters, but it seems to me that the EO Churches have no reason not to simply affirm the pre-Chalcedonion Christological formulation. What was affirmed about Our Lord's nature in the first three councils is what all Orthodox Christians believe: i.e., Our Lord is fully God and fully man without separation, division, or confusion. To go further than this and declare a duality of nature is superfluous and provides the potential for an erroneous understanding of Christ's work, such as the misguided notion that He performed certain acts as a man and other acts as God.

If the EO Churches will recognize pre-Chalcedonian Christological formulation as wholly sound and wholly sufficient, then the doctrines and decisions of the subsequent ecumenical councils can still be reassessed and probably affirmed by all. But I see no reason why the EO Churches can't simply affirm the sound Christology of the first three ecumenical councils.

That's not done by ditching the last four.  If we do that, then the COE will start asking why not dump Ephesus?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.0.html




Quote
Another thing to consider: the council of Chalcedon and those thereafter are not really "ecumenical," because they weren't affirmed by all the Orthodox Churches.
The COE make the same claim on Ephesus.  And the Unitarians make the same claim on Nicea I.

Quote
But let's pray for wisdom and humility to prevail all around. I am optimistic and hopeful, because I know that nothing is too difficult for God. Smiley
Amen
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #199 on: January 05, 2010, 02:39:48 AM »

Anybody who thinks Ephesus was "Ecumenical" is revising history. Pope Leo said it best: a Robber Synod. Period. A council guided by gold and bullying not the holy spirit. Chalcedon was ecumenical though.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,832


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #200 on: January 05, 2010, 02:47:06 AM »

I think ialmisry was speaking of Ephesus I.  You are speaking of Ephesus II.  I don't think Pope Leo condemned Ephesus I.
Logged

Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #201 on: January 05, 2010, 02:49:01 AM »

ah yes, my pardon. Regardless the COE rejects both. The only reason the COE rejected Chalcedon initially was because some of the wording was introduced at the last minute as I mentioned.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,832


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #202 on: January 05, 2010, 02:53:30 AM »

The only reason the COE rejected Chalcedon initially was because some of the wording was introduced at the last minute as I mentioned.

Are you saying the COE accepts Chalcedon now?  I know that it is not an ecumenical council for your Church.  What is its status in the COE?
Logged

Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #203 on: January 05, 2010, 02:54:25 AM »

COE signs documents agreeing with Chalcedon with each patriarch in separate. This because of some of the wording in the orginal council which still suggested a mingling of the divine nature or an origin of the divinity to the Virgin Mary.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 02:55:26 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #204 on: January 05, 2010, 02:58:05 AM »

I think SNB presents the most reasonable solution to this problem, and one I have suggested elsewhere a long time ago:

Quote
The schism resulting from various, complex, factors at Chalcedon is a schism that makes it necessary to supercede it in a truly pan-Orthodox council, at which the anathemas are lifted and a satisfactory solution is found that allows both expressions of the one Orthodox truth.


However, by virtue of such a superseding Council, the previously acknowledged Ecumenicity of Chalcedon by the Eastern Church would necessarily, though implicitly, be abandoned.

Peace.

As has been made clear here, many times: if the non-Chalcedonians are willing to accept Chalcedon, it is only on the basis of their belief that we re-interpreted Chalcedon after the fact. In other words, Chalcedon originally had Nestorian leanings which were corrected by later Church teaching (e.g. the 5th Ecumenical Council). So the EO would have to tacitly accept that the Church lapsed into error or crypto-Nestorianism for a while.

Isn't it clear enough from this that we don't share the same faith?

Another thing: the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which affirms not only two natures, but two wills and two energies is hardly ever discussed. We Orthodox accept this council as a logical follow-up to Chalcedon; therefore, if the Copts don't accept this council (and I know at least some of them don't), they don't really accept Chalcedon either, ergo, we don't have the same faith. In fact, the non-Chalcedonians had agreed to monoenergism in in the 7th century, in various agreements with the (monothelite) Byzantine emperor.  


You just rezzed a 4+ year old thread to say that?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 02:58:27 AM by deusveritasest » Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #205 on: January 05, 2010, 02:59:28 AM »


Out of curiosity, does anyone know how many EO there are compared to OO?

I believe the numbers are about 300 million EO vs. 75 million OO. So about 4 to 1.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #206 on: January 05, 2010, 03:04:39 AM »

Anybody who thinks Ephesus was "Ecumenical" is revising history. Pope Leo said it best: a Robber Synod. Period. A council guided by gold and bullying not the holy spirit. Chalcedon was ecumenical though.
All sides claimed Ephesus (I) at Chalcedon, epitomized by the scene where all the delegates dualed at who was the true followers of Pope St. Cyril.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #207 on: January 05, 2010, 03:05:31 AM »


I am very naive and ignorant about these matters, but it seems to me that the EO Churches have no reason not to simply affirm the pre-Chalcedonion Christological formulation. What was affirmed about Our Lord's nature in the first three councils is what all Orthodox Christians believe: i.e., Our Lord is fully God and fully man without separation, division, or confusion. To go further than this and declare a duality of nature is superfluous and provides the potential for an erroneous understanding of Christ's work, such as the misguided notion that He performed certain acts as a man and other acts as God.

If the EO Churches will recognize pre-Chalcedonian Christological formulation as wholly sound and wholly sufficient, then the doctrines and decisions of the subsequent ecumenical councils can still be reassessed and probably affirmed by all. But I see no reason why the EO Churches can't simply affirm the sound Christology of the first three ecumenical councils.

I think they claim to. But they also claim that the developments afterward were certainly orthodox and necessary and that it is wrong to deny their substance. It's really not about whether or not we're willing to accept the first three synods, but whether we think the following synods were necessary and supplementary or damaging to the faith of the previous synods.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #208 on: January 05, 2010, 03:08:52 AM »


That's not done by ditching the last four.  If we do that, then the COE will start asking why not dump Ephesus?

And we will answer because Chalcedon was not orthodox but Ephesus was.


Quote
Another thing to consider: the council of Chalcedon and those thereafter are not really "ecumenical," because they weren't affirmed by all the Orthodox Churches.

The COE make the same claim on Ephesus.

Ephesus was rendered universal by the Formula of Reunion.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #209 on: January 05, 2010, 03:10:02 AM »


Anybody who thinks Ephesus was "Ecumenical" is revising history. Pope Leo said it best: a Robber Synod. Period. A council guided by gold and bullying not the holy spirit. Chalcedon was ecumenical though.

Pope Leo I said that about the Second Council of Ephesus, actually, not the First Council of Ephesus which is the primary one which your church rejects.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #210 on: January 05, 2010, 03:12:11 AM »


Regardless the COE rejects both.

That doesn't mean it's not an Ecumenical Council.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #211 on: January 05, 2010, 03:13:09 AM »


COE signs documents agreeing with Chalcedon with each patriarch in separate.

You're saying the ACE accepts the Council of Chalcedon but rejects the First Council of Ephesus?!
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #212 on: January 05, 2010, 03:16:06 AM »

Quote
epitomized by the scene where all the delegates dualed at who was the true followers of Pope St. Cyril

COE rejects the second council of Ephesus, the one where Cyril's followers prevailed and the patriarch of Constantinople was..."removed". That I know. Everybody agreed to Chalcedon except the Coptic Church. Further developments of Chalcedon were not accepted by the COE.

aha, here it is:

from the Catechism of my Church

Quote
How many Ecumenical Councils do we recognize?

There were two truly Ecumenical Councils, 1) the Council of Nicea; and, 2) The Council of Constantinople; and, possibly three, the Council of Chalcedon, because the Church in the West (the Roman Byzantine Empire) returned to the Orthodox Faith, embracing two natures in Christ

and of course the First Jerusalem council.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 03:20:47 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,832


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #213 on: January 05, 2010, 03:22:52 AM »

Is that from the same catechism that was quoted in the other thread we've been posting in?  Could you cite the chapter number and section number that is from?  If it's from a different catechism, could you link it?  Actually, it might be good to provide a link regardless.  But if it is from the other catechism, the chapter and section numbers are needed to identify where this comes from.  Thanks.
Logged

Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #214 on: January 05, 2010, 03:26:24 AM »

http://www.acoeyouth.org/Learn/catechism/cat.html

this is the first catechism of the COE in centuries, Mar Odisho's is very old and needs an "update" to take into account the re-emergence of the COE in this modern world.

Chapter 6 Question 4 for the councils recognized. The Council of Nicea was recognized in 410 A.D. by Mar Isaac in the Persian empire.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 03:28:24 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #215 on: January 05, 2010, 03:29:28 AM »


COE rejects the second council of Ephesus, the one where Cyril's followers prevailed and the patriarch of Constantinople was..."removed".

I think you're mixing up your councils again. First Council of Ephesus was where Cyril deposed Nestorius. Second Council of Ephesus was where Dioscorus deposed Flavian.
Logged

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

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #216 on: January 05, 2010, 03:31:40 AM »


Everybody agreed to Chalcedon except the Coptic Church.

The Armenian church didn't accept Chalcedon. It wasn't directly a participant, but when it finally caught wind of them, they rejected it.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #217 on: January 05, 2010, 03:31:54 AM »

Quote
Second Council of Ephesus was where Dioscorus deposed Flavian

well, yes Flavian was..."removed". Trying to be polite.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 03:32:16 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #218 on: January 05, 2010, 03:37:41 AM »

Quote
Second Council of Ephesus was where Dioscorus deposed Flavian

well, yes Flavian was..."removed". Trying to be polite.

Flavian claimed to be a follower of Cyril (unlike Nestorius), so when you referred to a council where "the followers of Cyril removed the Patriarch of Constantinople" it seemed like the only council that logically fit that description was the First Council of Ephesus, not the Second.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #219 on: January 05, 2010, 03:47:02 AM »

Wasn't Flavian killed for being anti-Eutychian? I was naturally associating that teaching with Cyril. Regardless Dioscorus was Cyril's successor.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #220 on: January 05, 2010, 04:01:38 AM »


Wasn't Flavian killed for being anti-Eutychian?

Ummmmmmm, that might be one interpretation of what happened. But it has a number of assumptions in it that are not really agreed upon.

First, it's not really agreed upon whether physical damage was inflicted upon Flavian at the 449 council resulting in his death. As a matter of fact, some OOers on here have claimed that Flavian lived for several months after the end of that council.

Second, it seems to assume that the 449 council espoused a faith that was essentially the same as what was later called "Eutychianism". This is certainly not agreed upon.

Finally, it assumes that Flavian was opposed simply for deviating the whims of the 449 council. This is not agreed upon. Some OO have claimed that Flavian was actually in some way in line with the heresy condemned at the 431 council.


I was naturally associating that teaching with Cyril.

Well, no one else does. RC, EO, and OO all condemn the teachings of Eutyches and disassociate them from the teachings of Cyril.


Regardless Dioscorus was Cyril's successor.

Yes, but it's still important to not confuse the First Council of Ephesus which was held in 431 with the Second Council of Ephesus which was held in 449.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 04:02:05 AM by deusveritasest » Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,832


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #221 on: January 05, 2010, 04:06:26 AM »

Wasn't Flavian killed for being anti-Eutychian?

What is the position of Flavian in the COE?  Is he a saint?  I think I asked in another thread also about Ibas and Theodoret, but I don't think there was an answer.  What is the COE view of these men?  I'm not trying to start a big debate about it.  I'm just curious.  As I said in that other thread, I've heard they are saints in the COE, but I am not sure if that is true.  It would be interesting to know.
Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,711


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


« Reply #222 on: January 05, 2010, 01:54:30 PM »

That's not done by ditching the last four.  If we do that, then the COE will start asking why not dump Ephesus?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.0.html

Well, technically, in the EO/OO dialogues, it was also agreed that the people and councils we condemned on either sides were in fact Orthodox, and thus, the anathemas hold no water.  This is why conciliar "leniency" (for a lack of a better word) was thought to be the right thing to do (or as they said in the dialogues, they wanted to prevent "conciliar fundamentalism").  When it comes to the dialogues with the ACE, many still believe the Assyrians are still heretics.  I think after the small discussion we had with Rafa999, and reading some of the quotes, I seem more and more confident in the Coptic Church's position against the ACE.  But I still await maybe more qualified people to have discussions with and do my own little research before I can lose sympathy for them on theological matters.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,081


"My god is greater."


« Reply #223 on: January 05, 2010, 02:13:32 PM »

Not sure if this has been posted already, but the Coptic Metropolitan Bishoy seems pretty firmly of the opinion that the COE is Nestorian: http://www.lacopts.org/news/dialogue-the-assyrian-church-of-the-east-and-its-effect-the-dialogue-the-roman-catholic
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,407


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #224 on: January 06, 2010, 11:30:24 PM »

"How long will we, who are disciples of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who are taught by the same Holy Bible, continue to be divided among ourselves?"

-His Imperial Majesty Emperor Haile Selassie I-





Selam
Logged

"Don't register. Don't vote.
Don't enlist. Don't deploy.
Don't take oaths. Don't say the pledge.
Pray to God, and start a revolution instead!"
Selam, +GMK+
Tags: trisagion Chalcedon Chalcedon polemics ecumenical councils cheval mort Church of the East Assyrian OO Canon of Scripture 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.14 seconds with 72 queries.