OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 02:45:28 PM *
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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Cultural divide of the OO-EO Churches  (Read 2181 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
alexp4uni
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: kinda practicing theist
Jurisdiction: ecumenical kind
Posts: 329


« on: February 22, 2006, 01:10:55 AM »

Perhaps I am going to be irritating the wounds that are trying to heal on this forum, but 6 months ago on the Tomos thread I agitated a member on theological issues of OO-EO by erroneously giving a quick attack by summing up on irrelevant history. I know this bothered the other board members, so like the wind blowing in a storm, I fled from the PC as quickly as I clicked send to his replies. Meanwhile the individual who was refuting everyones' short replies was maliciously being attacked on irrefutable evidence he was presenting, which was not his own but the defense of his OO church ecclessiology. And in this members response he made it known he was not going to budge on faith. I have to admit it was quite admired to see this as a witness as well as an attacker against this member, this person certainly lives like the saint of those days.

   This led me to shut my mouth on controversial debates and pondered onto a more imaginative understanding on how the positions of the churches would have played out in the political church (Rome, Constantinople Alexandria,Antioch,and Jerusalem) being held within 451-870 had they agreed ecclesiastically but not culturally warmed up for what Alexandria and Antioch had to offer through their cultural forms of their churches expression. However their is a stipulation that politically the State could have had dangerous Emperors during the era (*Justinian...cough*) to throw off the balance of political power to uphold the Churches stance of "the One Holy Catholic and ..." Then that would have lead the emperors to have taken away Church of Constantinople's political privileges for defending Antioch and Alexandria in the Byzantine Crusades, when a blatant disrespect was handed to the churches because they were non-Greek(a possible racial motif specifically a title given that of "Barbarian") by forcing Greek assimilation on them. Meanwhile opening a door is open for the Turks to invade and thus Orthodox historians would have viewed this as sad tragedy on the Christian empire.

This seems like I'm setting up a denial of history like the Holocaust which is no joke even towards the Coptics and Syrians persecution (as it may seem disturbing to others for me to think about this) it obviously went completely different because of their doctrines. But honestly their is no other way to understand the historical context of a united church without the cultural tensions of the Greeks and the non-Greeks much more than political until the Muslims role take over of the Middle East as the way it was done.

Because I am trying to view this as a historical culmination up unto the 14th century when the Empire collapsed. Could Constantinople have redefined the Church as a perpetual persecuted Church refocusing their historical priorities on the the four mother churches excluding Rome?  Since Alexandria or Antioch has no other way to define their church (had there been an agreement on ecclessiology in the period of general councils and not culturally). This can justify what the Apostacy of Emperors did by regretfully not fulfilling their solemn vow to keep peace through the lands for Egypt, Syria, and Palestine as the Apostolic Church had been given in Nero's reign. Why do historians only talk about Constantinople, is it because of privilege and what kind of privilege system would the ranking have been:

1) Constantinople
2) Rome - then the first among equals
3) Alexandria - then after the Great Schism then they would have been raised up as second in status
4) Antioch
5) Jerusalem (And WHY IS the City of Christ Crucifixion and resurrection last???)

I have a few questions on cultural ideals which leads me to the general question:

What would be the standard today be by its liturgical and administrative praxis (and to be honest what would the Pharisaical outward approach of doing business in the Church be like)?

In the history of Alexandria Would it have been possible to have one successions of bishops had the Greeks and Copts segregated culturally (which is clearly evident in the City today)? Would the languages of Greek and Coptic be used in the liturgy simultaneously? would the title patriarch be next to the Pope's title?

In Antioch could Constantinople accepted the Syriac expression as a formative approach of liturgical praxis while combining Greek nuances that we see in the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch? Would Orthodox Unity of other Eastern denominations in the middle east have been as successfull by forcing bishops to show the standards of ecumenicity of the four churches? Would this have crushed Roman Catholic bishops attempts to proselytize the Eastern faithful?

Onto Americas jurisdictional unity, Would the adherents of a Coptic and Antiochian Archdioceses have changed drastically had the immigrants been more open to pan-orthodoxy which culturally would have made them more Western (like the Antiochian Archdiocese) towards the non-Orthodox relations in evangelism?

   So for that I would be happy if the board would give a creative chain of events on what the Greeks would have dealt with on non-Greek expressions of the church of Coptic and Syriac. Would This have culminated to today a possibility of a truly Orthodox expression with one identity or three mother churches with separate ecclesiastical expressions? So from the most intuitive minds of this newly changing board do you see this as any possibility?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2006, 01:26:18 AM »

While you bring up many interesting questions, I can only offer some thoughts regarding Jerusalem. The reason that it was fifth is that, after the Romans sacked the city c. 70 AD, there was very little left of it. The city was somewhat remade into a Roman city, and renamed Aelia Capitolina; hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed, and Jews were for a long time not permitted to enter the city. In essence, Jerusalem as we think of the city in the Bible ceased to exist for hundreds of years. Even the Church referred to the city as Aelia at the First Ecumenical Council (Canon 7). Until the 4th century, Jerusalem/Aelia was subject to the bishop of Palestinian Caesarea. It was only after Imperial favor started showering the area of Jerusalem with great gifts of money, churches, etc. that Jerusalem was again able to build itself up to one of the major Christian cities in the world. However, it never was able to regain it's foothold as the most important Christian city, the honor it had enjoyed in the apostolic period.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2006, 01:28:35 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
alexp4uni
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: kinda practicing theist
Jurisdiction: ecumenical kind
Posts: 329


« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2006, 02:29:23 PM »

Perhaps I am going to be irritating the wounds that are trying to heal on this forum,...

Since it's obvious I'm ticking off members already, just give me an idea of what standard the church can go through in order to have ecclesiastical principles. I'm not fully interested in OO/EO politics I am interested in race/cultural relations in the empire. The Apostolic Church was a Jewish and that was a transparent copy to the Syrians in Antioch in AD 60, I'm assuming the Syrians in the Apostolic Times were full Semitic hanging onto the traditions that the Apostles had carried. However when Paul ministered in Corinth through his perspective were to the Greeks and not to the Syrian Semitic which made changes into the church practices for Corinth, same approaching the city of Phillipi. So in Eastern Roman period were Bishops more influenced by the cultural norms of the time of (Nicea I) 325 then suppose after Chalcedon?
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,093


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2006, 03:22:56 PM »

The Apostolic Church was Jewish, but was also Greek.  Remember, there were Jews from all over the world who came to Jerusalem for Pentecost; you had the conversion of Cornelius, the Ethiopian, and more... Paul was converting Greeks during the Apostolic times, and it could be argued that after his second or third trip the Church had become majority Greek (culturally).  The council of the Apostles in Acts was important for just this reason.  So the Eastern Roman bishops had a mindset closer to Greek than Jewish around the 4th century, but it should also be noted that, while philosophically the two cultures could be quite different, as far as day-to-day life, they could be quite the same.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,160


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


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2006, 05:01:58 PM »

Dear alexp4uni,

I don't know where to begin to personally answer your questions.  I've always wondered why the Byzantine Church did not use Coptic or Syriac for their Alexandrian and Antiochian Churches?  I would suppose the RC Church is at least evangelically smart enough to use the language of the culture rather than make Egyptian Latin Churches.

So did Constantinople have some sort of ego as to effect all the churches of the empire as much as Rome did?  Personally, I'd probably say yes.  It shows later that Rome and Constantinople always struggled to be the higher see of honor in the Christian world.  It is sad however, in my opinion, that we completely forget yet another area of the Christian world, outside the Byzantine and Roman empires, i.e. the Persian empire and the churches of the Far Oriente, which is basically either extinct or in very small numbers today.

I believe one basic mistake of the Church was to define the Church within emperical grounds.  For one thing, I don't like the fact that the old flag of the empire was a two-headed eagle, one head for the Church and one for the government.  To me, this unites religion and government, not seperating the two.  Christ makes Himself very clear how His kingdom is not of this world, and that we should render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.  While we do our Christian duties as good citizens of the government, to respect them as we respect the Church, we are first Christians, second cosmopolitans.

I wish if the Church caught herself quick before getting Emperors sucked into Church affairs.  It would have probably kept us far from schism.  While Orthodoxy may pride herself as upholding the true faith, tragedy is, she mixed faith with politics, and thus we have our schisms.

Quote
What would be the standard today be by its liturgical and administrative praxis (and to be honest what would the Pharisaical outward approach of doing business in the Church be like)?

This is a great question, rather gutsy.  It is rather important that one should ask the second part of your question, i.e. the Pharisaical approach.  For by answering this, we will know what not to do.

I believe that the Church needs piety and humility today more than anything else in the world.  If Christ Himself is pious and humble by giving His apostles authority to bind and loose, how much more pious and humble should we be to accept this sort of responsibility?  We say we are "humbled" and yet we end up arrogant.  If we can go back to the times of the Apostles themselves, who even had no problem when ministering to different groups in one city as to achieve maximum effort to bring the gospel to people's own language, and not to be above another apostle, then all our problems can be easily solved.

We should never forget that we are not the Church of Leo or the Church of Dioscorus.  We are the Church of Christ.  We have come not only to serve our own, but our neighbors.  We are not Coptic, Syriac, Indian, Greek, Russian, or Latin, we are Orthodox.  We must hate one another and love Christ.  We must hate our Holy Fathers and serve Christ alone.  I must hate and deny myself, and follow the Orthodox faith of Christ.  The Pharisaical approach is to say that we follow Moses.  The humble approach, the approach taken by St. Paul is that we follow the spirit of the Law, the Logos Christ.

Quote
In the history of Alexandria Would it have been possible to have one successions of bishops had the Greeks and Copts segregated culturally (which is clearly evident in the City today)? Would the languages of Greek and Coptic be used in the liturgy simultaneously? would the title patriarch be next to the Pope's title?

Even in our Coptic liturgy, most of the liturgy is not Coptic, but actually Greek!  A lot of the Greek was being adopted into the Church (for example, we say "Xristos anesti", not "Piekhristos aftonf", "Kyrie Elayson" not "Efnoti nai nan").  I believe yes, it would have been one bishop for both Greeks and Egyptians.  We already call our own Pope, Pope and Patriach and Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria, the See of St. Mark.  To have one bishop serving both the Greeks and the Copts won't change this title.

Quote
Onto Americas jurisdictional unity, Would the adherents of a Coptic and Antiochian Archdioceses have changed drastically had the immigrants been more open to pan-orthodoxy which culturally would have made them more Western (like the Antiochian Archdiocese) towards the non-Orthodox relations in evangelism?

That I do not know.  Assuming a united Orthodox Church, imaginatively, and assuming the answer I gave you concerning the non-Pharasiacal approach, wouldn't it be nice to find that all the heirarchs in America submit to one another rather than holding on to one's own leadership?  In our Coptic liturgies, certain prayers start with the Priest praying "Pray," and if another priest is present, he adds "and bless," to which the other priest replies humbly "You bless."  Wouldn't it be nice if bishops come together and just decide who will lead with a humble heart wishing only for unity and not for personal preservation of leadership?  And wouldn't it be great if, like the Apostles, we would in fact reach out to the different cultures in America with their own expression of Orthodoxy for evangelical purposes?

God bless.

Mina
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.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2006, 08:33:21 PM »

Quote
Since it's obvious I'm ticking off members already

Um, nevermind, you're way to touchy... sheesh. All I did was try to answer a question giving historical facts. If you don't think that what I said is factual, then show why. Or, you may not agree with the reasoning behind those facts (e.g., you might not agree that Jerusalem should have been demoted as it was), but in that case, don't take it out on the messenger. When you get a thicker skin, start another thread, I'll jump in again. Smiley
« Last Edit: February 22, 2006, 08:34:13 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
alexp4uni
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: kinda practicing theist
Jurisdiction: ecumenical kind
Posts: 329


« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2006, 04:31:32 PM »

Quote
All I did was try to answer a question giving historical facts.

No problems Asterikos. I read your reply with respect to the question on the ranking system. And on the reply of Jerusalem being in dysfunction is quite reasonable after the Sack in 70 A.D. and it was bound to transfer the churches to more direction in communities of sprawling centers.  But my general question wasn't in the concern of how much value the ranking system of the apostolic churches were, but rather the importance that the collegial bishops played out in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem when interpreting history or Christian studies. I don't think the Alexandria and Antioch had too much concern on the Jerusalem at that time. If I'm wrong correct me.

But the questions i asked after your replied pertained to:
Quote
just give me an idea of what standard the church can go through in order to have ecclesiastical principles... I am interested in race/cultural relations in the empire.

And minasoliman answered the question for me.  Smiley But I will revisit this topic next week.
Logged
MarkosC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Patriarchate of Antioch
Jurisdiction: Greek/Melkite Catholic
Posts: 191


« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2006, 09:04:54 PM »

A few random comments on the last post, which probably don't have anything to do with the thread:

I've always wondered why the Byzantine Church did not use Coptic or Syriac for their Alexandrian and Antiochian Churches?  I would suppose the RC Church is at least evangelically smart enough to use the language of the culture rather than make Egyptian Latin Churches.

I'm told that at least in the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, there are at least a few parishes which pray the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in Syriac or Aramaic to this day.   I'm also told that prior to around the 1100s or so the Chalcedonian Patriarchate of Antioch basically used a Syriac-rite liturgy, not the Rite of Constantinople.  (rumor)

I'm told the Chalcedonian Patriarchate of Antioch also adopted Arabic liturgies within a few hundred years of the Arab conquest, as the people had gradually stopped speaking Syriac, Greek or Aramaic; I'm also of the belief that the Melkite Catholic and Antiochian Orthodox parishes in the Middle East pray their liturgy almost exclusively in Arabic.    (rumor)

I also know that, prior to the 1960s, the Latin Church prayed the Liturgy - both the Divine Liturgy/Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours - exclusively in Latin (with to my knowledge only one exception).   Popular piety and occasional hymns were in a local language, however.  Today of course liturgy is said in almost every language (fact)

Quote
It is sad however, in my opinion, that we completely forget yet another area of the Christian world, outside the Byzantine and Roman empires, i.e. the Persian empire and the churches of the Far Oriente, which is basically either extinct or in very small numbers today.

I wouldn't quite say "small in numbers".  The various Indian Christians, Chaldean Catholic or Assyrian Churches probably number around 10 million or so worldwide.   Not huge, but not insignificant.   And the reason why the Assyrian/Chaldean church is so small today has nothing to do with its lack of Imperial sponshorship - in fact, had they been to close to the Empire the Persians would not have destroyed them.  They were actually quite sizable in the 12-1400s and nearly converted the Mongol Empire.   Had they fully done so they might very well be as big as the Latin Church today; however various Turkic tribes basically destroyed them (and the rest of Central Asian culture) in the mid-1400s.   (fact)

Quote
I believe one basic mistake of the Church was to define the Church within emperical grounds.  For one thing, I don't like the fact that the old flag of the empire was a two-headed eagle, one head for the Church and one for the government.  To me, this unites religion and government, not seperating the two.  Christ makes Himself very clear how His kingdom is not of this world, and that we should render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.  While we do our Christian duties as good citizens of the government, to respect them as we respect the Church, we are first Christians, second cosmopolitans.

I do believe that the two headed eagle was a fairly late (1100s) Imperial symbol and that for most of its history the Imperial symbol was the chi-rho symbol.   (my belief, possibly mistaken)

Quote
she mixed faith with politics, and thus we have our schisms.

I believe that the Church needs piety and humility today more than anything else in the world.  If Christ Himself is pious and humble by giving His apostles authority to bind and loose, how much more pious and humble should we be to accept this sort of responsibility?  We say we are "humbled" and yet we end up arrogant.  If we can go back to the times of the Apostles themselves, who even had no problem when ministering to different groups in one city as to achieve maximum effort to bring the gospel to people's own language, and not to be above another apostle, then all our problems can be easily solved.

We should never forget that we are not the Church of Leo or the Church of Dioscorus. ÂÂ We are the Church of Christ. ÂÂ We have come not only to serve our own, but our neighbors. ÂÂ We are not Coptic, Syriac, Indian, Greek, Russian, or Latin, we are Orthodox. ÂÂ We must hate one another and love Christ. ÂÂ We must hate our Holy Fathers and serve Christ alone. ÂÂ I must hate and deny myself, and follow the Orthodox faith of Christ. ÂÂ The Pharisaical approach is to say that we follow Moses. ÂÂ The humble approach, the approach taken by St. Paul is that we follow the spirit of the Law, the Logos Christ.  

Mina-

What you say of course is 100% true.  However, it's undeniable that politics has hit just about every group of Churches.   What we need to do is be very watchful about this, and ensure that, when we become involved in church/national/ethnic/whatever politics, we do so for good reason and do not unnecessarily alienate or start fights with people or Churches which do not need to be alienated or fought with.  

Markos
Logged

O Lord although I desired to blot out
with my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please Thee
through sincere repentance
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
against my sould with his cunning

O Lord before I utterly perish do Thou save me!
Stavro
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,213



« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2006, 09:39:34 PM »

Quote
We must hate our Holy Fathers and serve Christ alone.
Interesting. "Serving God through hating His holy men" is a newly introduced dogma that amounts to nothing but rhetorics, for one cannot hate anybody, let alone the holy men of God, and still pretend to be following Him, the Eternal.
Quote
We should never forget that we are not the Church of Leo or the Church of Dioscorus.  We are the Church of Christ
What the EO consider themselves is their own business. As for OO, they are the Church of Christ that follows the teachings of Christ, the teachings confirmed and protected through his own blood by St. Dioscoros, from OO perspective. We (the OO) are pretty much the sons of Dioscoros, Severus, Cyril and Athanasius.

To try to portray the conflict between the EO and OO as simply a feud between two persons is not honest.

Quote
In the history of Alexandria Would it have been possible to have one successions of bishops had the Greeks and Copts segregated culturally (which is clearly evident in the City today)? Would the languages of Greek and Coptic be used in the liturgy simultaneously? would the title patriarch be next to the Pope's title?
The population of Greek in Egypt, and the EO altogether, is equal to the population of OO in ...say Russia. No need to worry about them. They will be absorbed in all ease, if the reunion -which is always imminent and has been such for the past 50 years-  Cheesy becomes reality. The dioceses in the West are the ones of interest. Rich, resourceful, free from oppression, and more culturely diverse than in the East, here is the real conflict. For example, the EO allow marriage between non-orthodox and orthodox, which is totally rejected by the OO.
In Africa, I would be disappointed to see a Greek Patriarch -of the united Church- Cheesy undo all the work of the OO in Africa by trying to make them speak, think and feel Greek, chanting byzantine songs that relate to nobody but him.  
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,160


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


WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2006, 12:20:32 AM »

Dear Markos,

The rite used is Byzantine, regardless of the language.  Uniates on the other hand not only conform to language, but also use rites of other Orthodox churches to further RC evangelism.  Sometimes, it confused people, at least in the Coptic Church, whether this is the Church under Rome or under Alexandria because it is the exact same liturgy used (obviously one knows once the name of the patriarch prayed for is heard).

As for the Far East, well, those that were under Catholic/Orthodox missionaries are still present.  These churches that are a result of missionaries is not what I'm talking about.  There are other churches, i.e. the present-day Nestorians (whom I really have no opinion about much when it comes to their faith, since it is questionable), did have churches in China for example ever since St. Thomas's evangelization, and one wonders how their liturgies were like and in many other areas in the East, which are extinct or close to extinction.

As for your last remark, I agree, but we must be watchful.

Dear Stavro,

To tell you the truth, I don't have much to say.  There's nothing "new" in what I say, and you're basically taking what I say literally.  I'm not going to clarify what I wrote because in the context of what I wrote it is clear what I mean and where I get this word "hate" from.  It's like ruining a joke or an analogy that's not all too perfect, although has a strong, yet simple language.

If there are implied differences between me and you on other issues, I'll agree to disagree.

God bless.

Mina
« Last Edit: February 24, 2006, 12:22:18 AM 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.
Stavro
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,213



« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2006, 03:47:08 PM »

Dear Mina,
the only conclusion from the words, the style and everything else you wrote on this topic and in similar topics is "unity at any cost", and it needs to be corrected. If you think your writings should have conveyed anything else, I advice you to revise your use of words, logic and everything else to make your point of view more clear.  

I do not want to convince you, but it is important to show that not all OO seek this kind of unity with EO and are ready to give up their heritage for no good reason. It is not any different on the EO side.

Whenever I have the chance, I will continue to expose the errors in your position and explain what honest OO think on the issue.

Be well and God bless.

Stavro


Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,160


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


WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 25, 2006, 05:48:06 PM »

Based on my personal beliefs that nothing, not even faith of each respective father, separates us, then unity is mandatory.

God bless.

Mina
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.
czzham
...at work in the sonic Monastery...
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Posts: 65

...in pursuit of Divine Mystery...


« Reply #12 on: February 25, 2006, 06:09:20 PM »

OK. I find this thread interesting but, even as an Orthodox Christian, I find myself lacking in the knowledge as to what OO and EO are, or why there is a seeming loggerhead here. My communion is OCA, which (to my understanding) is also with Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Moscow, Serbia, Georgia, and others. Please enlighten me, I'd really like to know what's up with all this.
Logged

Non-liturgical lyrics are wasted space between solos.
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #13 on: February 25, 2006, 06:42:56 PM »

The very first liturgies of the beautiful Alexandrian church were chanted in greek and followed the Alexandrian Rite, which today is now lost. The Coptic church today celebrates a modified liturgy of the Alexandrian Rite. As all rites, the Coptic church took the Alexandrian Rite Liturgy and as the centuries passed, slowly added (or took away) prayers and chants. I believe that Coptic chanting is of ancient (pharaonic roots) but that it was also influenced by and influenced Byzantine chanting as many historians note that Byzantine chanting originated in Alexandria, Antioch, the ancient greek melodies, and the Jewish temple chants. Early Alexandrian church music would probably have been very close to both Byzantine chant and Jewish temple chant (as it still is in many ways today except for the Copticization of the liturgy after the sad split between EO and OO).

Today, the greeks of alexandria could probably well be absrobed into the Coptic church if there is a union. However, remember, that in ancient times, only people of Greek and Roman blood were allowed to live in the city of Alexandria (until Christianity settled in the city). An exception to this rule was servants, slaves, and I believe people on business or visitors.

As for the Church of Antioch, how are you going to make all Byzantine Arab antiochians pray in a different rite? I personally love both the Antiochian Byzantine rite as well as the Antiochian syriac Rite- both express the Antiochian church, however expecting either of the people from either of these rites to pray in the other's rite is hard to imagine...perhaps it could be done as something once in a while for people to get used to both rites. Or perhaps, the Antiochian churches can manage to incorporate both Rites into the Antiochian Liturgy (which would be a mounumental task, theortetically and practically).

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,160


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


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 25, 2006, 06:54:13 PM »

I didn't say to get one rite absorbed into another, but rather to have one leader of both rites, one Pope of both Greeks and Copts in Egypt.  Likewise in Syria, and likewise in America as well Wink.

God bless.

Mina
« Last Edit: February 25, 2006, 06:54:39 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.
Stavro
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,213



« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2006, 02:10:36 AM »

Quote
Based on my personal beliefs that nothing, not even faith of each respective father, separates us, then unity is mandatory.
Faith dogmas and practices that are mandatory would refer to issues related to salvation. Absence of unity between EO and OO is not considered such by both parties, for each side considers itself as the True, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, lacking in nothing. There cannot be a true Church that is "missing" a part. Nobody feels that his/her salvation is jeopardized by the absence of unity.
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
czzham
...at work in the sonic Monastery...
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Posts: 65

...in pursuit of Divine Mystery...


« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2006, 04:30:32 AM »

Once again, for what it may or may not be worth, I'd really like an explanation as to what this "debate" is in re. What is "OO"? and, what is "EO"? and, why is there a willingness to debate an issue here that is unclear to the seemingly uninitiated? Is this some king of sorority war, or is my former question unworthy of consideration because I'm "not in 'the know'"? My understanding of orthodoxy is that the very word, much less the practice thereof, connotes a certain responsibility to maturity, and a dissemination of the resultant understanding to one's fellow adherents. Am I wrong, or is this a personal discussion upon which I am a mere eavesdropper? If so, why is it a public thread?
What's up with this???
Logged

Non-liturgical lyrics are wasted space between solos.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2006, 09:58:08 AM »

czzham,

Quote
Once again, for what it may or may not be worth, I'd really like an explanation as to what this "debate" is in re. What is "OO"? and, what is "EO"?

I will attempt to give you the most objective and non-polemical answer I can give to your question (though from the outset I will declare the fact that I am OO just so you know):

OO = Oriental Orthodox, and EO = Eastern Orthodox. These are the “Ecumenically friendly” names assigned to the “non-Chalcedonian” and “Chalcedonian” Churches, respectively. These Churches are not in Communion with the other, and have not been since the fifth century division brought about by the Council of Chalcedon. Each Church considers itself the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church of God. The OO Church accepts only three Councils as possessing Ecumenical authority (Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381, and Ephesus 431), whilst the EO Church accepts seven (or eight, depending on who you ask) Councils as possessing Ecumenical authority (the ones I have just mentioned, in addition to Chalcedon 451, Constantinople 533, Constantinople 680, Constantinople 692?, and Nicaea 787).

The Council of Chalcedon:

The non-Chalcedonian Churches (Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, Indian, Ethiopian, and Eritrean) rejected the Council of Chalcedon as a crypto-Nestorian Council which they believe undermined the established Tradition of the Church as expounded particularly at Ephesus 431 in the context of Cyril of Alexandria’s writings. The Chalcedonian Churches uphold Chalcedon as the fourth Ecumenical Council which they believe did nothing more than defend the perfect and complete humanity of Christ. Chalcedonians maintain that this is how Chalcedon is to be interpreted, whilst non-Chalcedonians maintain that such an interpretation of Chalcedon is only plausible within the theological context of the sixth century.

Dioscoros of Alexandria vs. Leo of Rome:

The non-Chalcedonian Church venerates Dioscoros of Alexandria as a Teacher and Confessor of the Orthodox Faith who was unjustly persecuted and ex-communicated at Chalcedon. They furthermore uphold his ex-communication of the Council and all its proponents, including the specific anathema against Leo of Rome. Leo of Rome was anathematised upon ecclesiological and theological grounds (the uncanonical restoration of Theodoret to Communion, and the belief that his Christology was crypto-Nestorian). The Chalcedonian Churches on the other hand, in ascribing Ecumenical authority to Chalcedon, venerate Leo of Rome as a Saint, and uphold Chalcedon’s ex-communication of Dioscoros, which was strictly upon ecclesiological grounds (the belief that he falsely ex-communicated certain figures at Ephesus 449 inter alia). In ascribing Ecumenical authority to the Council of Constantinople 533, they also regard Dioscoros, and consequently the non-Chalcedonians who follow him, Monophysites. Non-Chalcedonians maintain that neither Dioscoros, nor the Church in general, ever ascribed to the Monophysite heresy (they in fact anathematised this very heresy at Ephesus 475), and in upholding the authority of leading non-Chalcedonian Patriarchs such as Timothy of Alexandria, Severos of Antioch, and Philoxenos of Mabbugh, regard her Chalcedonian accusers, and most specifically Leo of Rome, crypto-Nestorians.

Semantics:

The non-Chalcedonians preferred (and prefer) to adhere to the mia physis (one nature) language of Cyril of Alexandria in reference to Christ's unity, whilst the Chalcedonians preferred (and prefer) to adhere to duo physis (two nature language). The non-Chalcedonians interpreted the Chalcedonian two-nature language as Nestorian, since it was a popular expression employed in Nestorian circles at the time to promote the heresy that Christ's humanity and divinity were two grounds of being; Chalcedonians claim that the expression was re-interpreted at Chalcedon to merely defend the perfect and complete reality of Christ's divinity and humanity. The Chalcedonians interpreted the non-Chalcedonian one-nature language in the sense of a denial of Christ's human nature - the manner in which Eutyches (a heretic condemned by both EO and OO Churches) was alleged to have employed such language; Non-Chalcedonians claim that they were using such language in the exact same sense that Cyril of Alexandria used it i.e. to defend the composite unity of Christ's hypostasis, and not as a denial or compromise of Christ's humanity.

EO and OO Today:

Although the EO and OO Churches remain out of Communion with each other, substantial and significant progress in establishing a common faith have taken place through various official and unofficial theological dialogues and agreements (which can be found here). Steps and conditions to a re-union have also been discussed and agreed upon throughout these dialogues. The traditional polemical stance of each Church towards the other i.e. the OO view of the EO’s as Nestorians, and the EO view of the OO’s as monophysites, has, throughout such dialogues, been reduced to a semantic misunderstanding promoted by polemical and political tension.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2006, 10:03:45 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,160


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


WWW
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2006, 03:01:59 PM »

Dear Stavro,

Again, I disagree.  In light of today's dialogues and latest research, division upon churches that always had the same faith sound to me of the spirit of one Church that only seems to us divided, yet deep down united.  I know you will disagree, and I'd rather have this debate in the private forums.  Let's agree to disagree here.  If you want to post, at least post something in answer to alexp4uni's original post.

God bless.

Mina
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.
Stavro
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,213



« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2006, 08:10:52 PM »

I replied to Alex4puni on matters that needed clarification. The presence of EO in Egypt was misrepresented, and it does not seem that anybody cared to correct or they lack all knowledge about the issue.  

I am not part of the private forums, and do not intend to continue there. I do not want to convince you. It is good though you maintain that it is your personal opinion.
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.096 seconds with 48 queries.