Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Sundry Questions About the COC
Greetings brothers in Christ,
Quick background: I am a recent convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church, and while I wholeheartedly ascribe to Chalcedon, I also sincerely love the Coptic Christians; your monasticism, your heritage, your Liturgy, and your bravery in the face of oppression. I have been learning more about the Egyptian Church recently, though my understanding of the Copts as they are today is limited, so I had a few questions:
1. What is the position of the Pope exactly in the Coptic Church. In the EO Church, our Patriarchs are nothing like the Pope of Rome with his direct authority over every bishop of the Church, instead they are simply a bishop whose diocese extends over a larger administrative area than a Diocesan or Metropolitan bishop. However, the Patriarch has no more sacramental power than a diocesan bishop and at a council or Synod, their votes would count the same. Is this the way it is in the Coptic Church? I ask this because it seems to me that the OO Churches, while they concelebrate aren't as uniform as the EO Churches in that despite minor differences in practice, the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is the same in Moscow as it is in Damascus (this is kind of neat, because it means I can go to a Liturgy in another language and know what's going on, however, it would be cool if there were more diverse Rites and Liturgies). It also seems that the OO are much more tied to their Patriarchs in the same way that the Latins are attached to their Pope. I also remember running into a RC apologist who said that there has always been two Popes at any given time, in Rome and Alexandria and that the Coptic adherence to their Pope is proof of the predominance of the Pope in the early Church. I gather that he didn't know what he was talking about because Pope and Patriarch mean the same thing, but I confess my own ignorance as well, which is why I'm here :P I've also read that the Syriacs believe in the Preeminence of Peter over the rest of the Apostles, as in he was the head of the Church. I wonder if they ascribe Petrine Exclusivism to their Patriarch since Antioch was the First Episcopacy of Peter (I bring this up to RC people alot because according to this idea, Antioch has an equal claim as Rome, "Which is more important, his first or last chair?")
2. Is ethno-phyletism (racism/nationalism) and inaccessibility a problem in Coptic or OO churches? I'm sure many of you are aware of the problems the EO have had with being inaccessible at times due to ethnicity being so dominant, and some turning their churches into an outright ethnic club. For instance, my current Priest who is a very traditional immigrant Priest who lived under Communism, and is the nicest most warm hearted guy you could ever meet, was run out of his first Church in the U.S. because of this. He came in and found the Church to be a wicked, clannish ethnic club where the women and children went to the Church (often late) and the men went to the fellowship hall to drink! He shut down the bar and told them this wasn't an ethnic club, and they were horrible to him. So, he was given release by our awesome Bishop to start a mission Church to bring in converts and cradle who were serious about their faith. I haven't heard any direct complaint of this nonsense happening in a Coptic Church though there aren't that many in the States. I have heard from a woman who went to an Assyrian Church where she was either ignored, treated with disdain, and some old Tata gave her the evil eye. I have heard that Coptic Churches are hard to integrate into because of the language, but then again so was the Russian Church just 30 years ago, though dedicated converts like Blessed Fr. Seraphim Rose pushed through that, learned the language and paved the way for converts after them. Is this the case in your Church or is it a different story? If I were to go visit, say, St. Mark's here in Phoenix, what would my experience be?
3. What do you feel is standing between EO and Coptic union? From my perspective there is relatively few differences in our teachings and practice, and I find it fascinating that despite our separation your Church seems so similar, such as having a similar theology of icons despite never having the Seventh Ecumenical council. What seems to be getting in the way is that we've anathematized each others' Saints. Severus might not be that hard to exhonorate according to our own theologians: http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/studies-themes/252-severus-of-antiochs-objections-to-the-council-of-chalcedon-a-re-assessment however Dioscorous is a huge stumbling block because our Church views him as a murderer and a criminal. I would never agree to union at the expense of the truth, but I also find this schism to be unmitigated sin that must be rectified, and the sooner the better. Especially now that militant Islam is making a resurgence and the Secular Western World is relativising our beliefs, I find that the need for our Churches to join hands again more than ever.
On that note, may God save Egypt, and I ask you my brothers and sisters to pray for Syria and Patriarch Ignatius IV who I greatly fear for at the moment.
Peace to all of you in XC
Quick background: I am a recent convert to the Eastern Orthodox Church, and while I wholeheartedly ascribe to Chalcedon, I also sincerely love the Coptic Christians; your monasticism, your heritage, your Liturgy, and your bravery in the face of oppression. I have been learning more about the Egyptian Church recently, though my understanding of the Copts as they are today is limited, so I had a few questions:
1. What is the position of the Pope exactly in the Coptic Church. In the EO Church, our Patriarchs are nothing like the Pope of Rome with his direct authority over every bishop of the Church, instead they are simply a bishop whose diocese extends over a larger administrative area than a Diocesan or Metropolitan bishop. However, the Patriarch has no more sacramental power than a diocesan bishop and at a council or Synod, their votes would count the same. Is this the way it is in the Coptic Church? I ask this because it seems to me that the OO Churches, while they concelebrate aren't as uniform as the EO Churches in that despite minor differences in practice, the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is the same in Moscow as it is in Damascus (this is kind of neat, because it means I can go to a Liturgy in another language and know what's going on, however, it would be cool if there were more diverse Rites and Liturgies). It also seems that the OO are much more tied to their Patriarchs in the same way that the Latins are attached to their Pope. I also remember running into a RC apologist who said that there has always been two Popes at any given time, in Rome and Alexandria and that the Coptic adherence to their Pope is proof of the predominance of the Pope in the early Church. I gather that he didn't know what he was talking about because Pope and Patriarch mean the same thing, but I confess my own ignorance as well, which is why I'm here :P I've also read that the Syriacs believe in the Preeminence of Peter over the rest of the Apostles, as in he was the head of the Church. I wonder if they ascribe Petrine Exclusivism to their Patriarch since Antioch was the First Episcopacy of Peter (I bring this up to RC people alot because according to this idea, Antioch has an equal claim as Rome, "Which is more important, his first or last chair?")
2. Is ethno-phyletism (racism/nationalism) and inaccessibility a problem in Coptic or OO churches? I'm sure many of you are aware of the problems the EO have had with being inaccessible at times due to ethnicity being so dominant, and some turning their churches into an outright ethnic club. For instance, my current Priest who is a very traditional immigrant Priest who lived under Communism, and is the nicest most warm hearted guy you could ever meet, was run out of his first Church in the U.S. because of this. He came in and found the Church to be a wicked, clannish ethnic club where the women and children went to the Church (often late) and the men went to the fellowship hall to drink! He shut down the bar and told them this wasn't an ethnic club, and they were horrible to him. So, he was given release by our awesome Bishop to start a mission Church to bring in converts and cradle who were serious about their faith. I haven't heard any direct complaint of this nonsense happening in a Coptic Church though there aren't that many in the States. I have heard from a woman who went to an Assyrian Church where she was either ignored, treated with disdain, and some old Tata gave her the evil eye. I have heard that Coptic Churches are hard to integrate into because of the language, but then again so was the Russian Church just 30 years ago, though dedicated converts like Blessed Fr. Seraphim Rose pushed through that, learned the language and paved the way for converts after them. Is this the case in your Church or is it a different story? If I were to go visit, say, St. Mark's here in Phoenix, what would my experience be?
3. What do you feel is standing between EO and Coptic union? From my perspective there is relatively few differences in our teachings and practice, and I find it fascinating that despite our separation your Church seems so similar, such as having a similar theology of icons despite never having the Seventh Ecumenical council. What seems to be getting in the way is that we've anathematized each others' Saints. Severus might not be that hard to exhonorate according to our own theologians: http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/studies-themes/252-severus-of-antiochs-objections-to-the-council-of-chalcedon-a-re-assessment however Dioscorous is a huge stumbling block because our Church views him as a murderer and a criminal. I would never agree to union at the expense of the truth, but I also find this schism to be unmitigated sin that must be rectified, and the sooner the better. Especially now that militant Islam is making a resurgence and the Secular Western World is relativising our beliefs, I find that the need for our Churches to join hands again more than ever.
On that note, may God save Egypt, and I ask you my brothers and sisters to pray for Syria and Patriarch Ignatius IV who I greatly fear for at the moment.
Peace to all of you in XC
Comments
2. It can be a problem, but it is not too horrible. It can take some getting used to.
3. Most of our Hierarchs are for it. But if the anathemas on our Saints are not lifted there will never be any union. These two men are great Saints who have been venerated by our Church for their eloquent defense of Orthodoxy and we will never stop revering them.
The Pope would be deposed only for theological reasons.
Pope Yousab was not deposed for corruption. He was abducted by the civil arm of the Church, instituted by the government, whom they accused of corruption.
The Pope would be deposed only for theological reasons.
Pope Yousab was not deposed for corruption. He was abducted by the civil arm of the Church, instituted by the government, whom they accused of corruption.
Thank you. But for what reasons was he deposed?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13642.msg159186#msg159186 date=1345636133] Just a correction.
The Pope would be deposed only for theological reasons.
Pope Yousab was not deposed for corruption. He was abducted by the civil arm of the Church, instituted by the government, whom they accused of corruption.
Thank you. But for what reasons was he deposed?
Deposition is only for theological matters and done through the holy synod. He was not deposed.
He was forced not to intervene in the civil administration of the church matters (financial, buying, selling real estate, ..)
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13642.msg159187#msg159187 date=1345636495]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13642.msg159186#msg159186 date=1345636133] Just a correction.
The Pope would be deposed only for theological reasons.
Pope Yousab was not deposed for corruption. He was abducted by the civil arm of the Church, instituted by the government, whom they accused of corruption.
Thank you. But for what reasons was he deposed?
Deposition is only for theological matters and done through the holy synod. He was not deposed.
He was forced not to intervene in the civil administration of the church matters (financial, buying, selling real estate, ..)
Do you know where I could read more about him and his reign as Patriarch? Thanks.
3. Most of our Hierarchs are for it. But if the anathemas on our Saints are not lifted there will never be any union. These two men are great Saints who have been venerated by our Church for their eloquent defense of Orthodoxy and we will never stop revering them.
I was asking if there are any Saints of the EO communion that you would have trouble recognizing such as St. Flavian or St. Maximos the Confessor? Also, do the OO consider Empress St. Theodora a Saint? I know that she's greatly respected for protecting the non-Chalcedonians from persecution.
P.S. forgive me for the horrible grammar of my OP. I was excited and didn't review the post before publishing it.
I was asking if there are any Saints of the EO communion that you would have trouble recognizing such as St. Flavian or St. Maximos the Confessor?Depends. In some cases yes, and in some cases no. Monk Maximus and Pat. Flavian are certainly never going to be recognized by OOs as Saints and neither should they be. However, some EO Saints have been venerated by OOs both in modern times and historically. St. John Climacus is one such example. Not only is his "Ladder" appreciated by modern OOs, but historically this work has been translated into Arabic, Coptic, Syriac, and Armenian and was/is used by our own OO Monastic Fathers.
[quote author=Mikhael link=topic=13642.msg159244#msg159244 date=1345745760]
Also, do the OO consider Empress St. Theodora a Saint?
Yes. We go as far as to say that she was a Miaphysite, and not a Chalcedonian. Justinian, however, was Chalcedonian.
If EOs can understand this, I think that would lead to a positive step forward even further.
The "truth" is never so clear. You always will get two sides to historical events. For you, as you say, Dioscorus is a murderer and a criminal, whereas for us he is a saint and a confessor. Likewise, we also view Leo as a murderer, criminal, and Nestorian, and you view him as a great defender of Orthodoxy. Either way, let us be honest about who the real "murderers" are, the executors of justice in the imperial government once a council is passed and becomes imperial law. Second, truth, real truth, is the Lord Christ Himself, above any saint, council, or custom, and to profess one and the same Orthodox and Apostolic true faith in Him should never impede any unity in my humble opinion, even if we disagree on the details of history.
If EOs can understand this, I think that would lead to a positive step forward even further.
I highly agree with this and I fully admit my own ignorance of the complexities of what occurred to make the split. Perhaps there can be unity without us trying to get each other to denounce our Saints. Pope Leo is one thing, but I'm sure that to denounce Severus would be just as painful for you as denouncing St. Maximos would be for me. It's also my understanding that among the Oriental Churches that some saints are canonized in one tradition but not others. I can't remember the exact saint, but I heard that the Armenians regard one of your saints as a heretic. If we could restore unity on a common profession of faith and not be forced to commemorate and denounce saints when it is against our conscience, then I think we could live with the differences. Besides, we have dark times ahead and we need each other.
You are in very good hands, spirits and minds.
I had most of the same misunderstandings after finding relief from my RCC indoctrination, in EO propaganda. It was fearful to enter a Coptic Church after years of EO heretical monophysite slanders. Sneak into as many Saturday evening Coptic Vesper and midnight praise services as you can manage. Hopefully they have service books in your language. Gradually join in singing away those false fears.
I oppose formal union with EO because of their modern Western social and moral compromises and laxity (except ROCOR) and their secular politically dominating mentality and intrigues. Copts are no match and shouldn't be given further incentives to fall further into that too long-lived morass.
If you become bored, get a little local color from my concerns with current Coptic leadership's movement toward heretical anti-patriarchal feminism and freudianism, which is now at a similar stage as it was in the modern Western EO jurisdictions 30-40 years ago. Before the current, poorly concealed, powerful Greek flirtations with female ordination. Pray for me.
Mikhael,
You are in very good hands, spirits and minds.
I had most of the same misunderstandings after finding relief from my RCC indoctrination, in EO propaganda. It was fearful to enter a Coptic Church after years of EO heretical monophysite slanders. Sneak into as many Saturday evening Coptic Vesper and midnight praise services as you can manage. Hopefully they have service books in your language. Gradually join in singing away those false fears.
I oppose formal union with EO because of their modern Western social and moral compromises and laxity (except ROCOR) and their secular politically dominating mentality and intrigues. Copts are no match and shouldn't be given further incentives to fall further into that too long-lived morass.
If you become bored, get a little local color from my concerns with current Coptic leadership's movement toward heretical anti-patriarchal feminism and freudianism, which is now at a similar stage as it was in the modern Western EO jurisdictions 30-40 years ago. Before the current, poorly concealed, powerful Greek flirtations with female ordination. Pray for me.
1. Ehh I've actually read some of the Coptic theology, and I do see some stuff sidling dangerously close to monophysitism, though I will take non-Chalcedonians at their word that they are Miaphysites. Also, much of Pope Shenouda III theology was downright blasphemous, like the denial of Theosis, and the removal of prayers for the dead (which I view as nothing short of a crime against the departed). Fr. Matta El Maskeen, was much closer to Orthodoxy than his pupil. That being said: I will take organs, occasional simony among the Greeks, and ignorant parishioners clammering for a female priesthood (will NEVER happen) over a Church that got rid of prayers for the dead. Especially when you consider that even in ancient times, the Church had moral problems in Constantinople as well as Alexandria. We just need a new St. John Chrysostom for the Greeks, like the Russians had St. John the Wonderworker.
2. ROCOR is not the only Church doing things right. I came from an Antiochian parish that was full of very devoted converts and cradles, including two elderly parishioners who knew St. John Maximovich personally (one was his driver!) and full on witnessed miracles. Even with the abysmal state of the GOA, there are traditional currents such as the "Ephraimites" (I hate that term), who I can't even blame for being somewhat fundamentalist when you consider the alternative. The OCA is very consistent in their churches. The Romanians, Bulgarians, Serbians, Ukranians etc have the tendency to either be ethnic clubs or bastions of sound Orthodoxy. Alot of that also depends on where you live. In California, most of the Churches were a blessing to attend. Here in Phoenix, I had to look hard for a good church.
3. I have seen plenty of examples of Copts under unfortunate Protestant influence, and Pope Shenouda accusing advocates of Theosis of "committing shirk"(!)-- though that Muslim influence may have been political, it's still horrible.
So, please, I would very much be willing to attend an occasional Coptic service and hear the Coptic approach to theological questions, but please do not pontificate to me about how my Church (which you left) is under western influence. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a resort for the saints-- perhaps you should have remembered this before breaking communion over the lapses of your brothers.
Forgive me if my response caused offense,
Pray for me a sinner
[quote author=irishpilgrim link=topic=13642.msg160561#msg160561 date=1350528102]
Mikhael,
You are in very good hands, spirits and minds.
I had most of the same misunderstandings after finding relief from my RCC indoctrination, in EO propaganda. It was fearful to enter a Coptic Church after years of EO heretical monophysite slanders. Sneak into as many Saturday evening Coptic Vesper and midnight praise services as you can manage. Hopefully they have service books in your language. Gradually join in singing away those false fears.
I oppose formal union with EO because of their modern Western social and moral compromises and laxity (except ROCOR) and their secular politically dominating mentality and intrigues. Copts are no match and shouldn't be given further incentives to fall further into that too long-lived morass.
If you become bored, get a little local color from my concerns with current Coptic leadership's movement toward heretical anti-patriarchal feminism and freudianism, which is now at a similar stage as it was in the modern Western EO jurisdictions 30-40 years ago. Before the current, poorly concealed, powerful Greek flirtations with female ordination. Pray for me.
1. Ehh I've actually read some of the Coptic theology, and I do see some stuff sidling dangerously close to monophysitism, though I will take non-Chalcedonians at their word that they are Miaphysites. Also, much of Pope Shenouda III theology was downright blasphemous, like the denial of Theosis, and the removal of prayers for the dead (which I view as nothing short of a crime against the departed). Fr. Matta El Maskeen, was much closer to Orthodoxy than his pupil. That being said: I will take organs, occasional simony among the Greeks, and ignorant parishioners clammering for a female priesthood (will NEVER happen) over a Church that got rid of prayers for the dead. Especially when you consider that even in ancient times, the Church had moral problems in Constantinople as well as Alexandria. We just need a new St. John Chrysostom for the Greeks, like the Russians had St. John the Wonderworker.
2. ROCOR is not the only Church doing things right. I came from an Antiochian parish that was full of very devoted converts and cradles, including two elderly parishioners who knew St. John Maximovich personally (one was his driver!) and full on witnessed miracles. Even with the abysmal state of the GOA, there are traditional currents such as the "Ephraimites" (I hate that term), who I can't even blame for being somewhat fundamentalist when you consider the alternative. The OCA is very consistent in their churches. The Romanians, Bulgarians, Serbians, Ukranians etc have the tendency to either be ethnic clubs or bastions of sound Orthodoxy. Alot of that also depends on where you live. In California, most of the Churches were a blessing to attend. Here in Phoenix, I had to look hard for a good church.
3. I have seen plenty of examples of Copts under unfortunate Protestant influence, and Pope Shenouda accusing advocates of Theosis of "committing shirk"(!)-- though that Muslim influence may have been political, it's still horrible.
So, please, I would very much be willing to attend an occasional Coptic service and hear the Coptic approach to theological questions, but please do not pontificate to me about how my Church (which you left) is under western influence. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a resort for the saints-- perhaps you should have remembered this before breaking communion over the lapses of your brothers.
Forgive me if my response caused offense,
Pray for me a sinner
God Bless you, Mikhael,
Of course your sincere open, honest, studied and experienced comments are not offensive to me. They are a sort of breath of fond memories of old (not Orthodox) stale air. I've had similar reactions from similar experiences. Apparently the Chalcedon apologists that you are studying with are now using the "nit-picking" of Pope Shenouda's "pastoral" style of English language "theology" (including the old reliable "monophysite" slander) as a cover-up for their own inability to clearly, understandably, explain and defend the farce of their bloody, murderous "Fourth Holy Ecumenical Council." As weak as some of Pope Shenouda's second, third, etc. language, homespun English theology "translations" may appear to you (and me), who do you follow? Philip (protestant baptism, remarried priesthood, puppet bishops, anonymous "street clothed" priests [and bishops], etc., etc)? Najim (married monks? and bishops)? Jonah (???)? Holy Cross Seminary (freudian and female "Orthodox clergy")?I won't go on. I've already gone too far for general readership comfort.
I encourage you to continue on. Keep reading, studying, and discussing (including here). But, most important for me, was the experiences and acquaintances of the spirited, poorly attended Coptic vespers, praises and matins prayers. So far as I know, Philip has essentially forbidden these services in "his" Antiochian Churches as being "Orthodox Fundamentalism." I was able to attend the abridged (15-20 minute) Antiochian "vespers" and then attend 1-2 hours of priest led Bible study and deacon (sometimes priest or bishop) led midnight praises at the nearby Coptic Church. The sea (sometimes unsettled and chaotic) of young and old vested "deacons" at nearly every Coptic Liturgy seems to have no close rival in all of Christianity. Sadly, secretive, rebellious demonic Coptic freudians and feminists have not been acknowledged, openly discussed and spiritually opposed by the Coptic Pope, clergy and theologians. Pope Shenouda kept this seeming anti-patriarchal heterodox addiction hidden from open study and discussion, with very rare spoken (never written that I am aware of) disclosures. Father Mata seems to have shared aspects of these clever, evasive secretive heresies (even in rare written English).
I've only seen references to the "Theosis" and "prayers for the dead" criticisms on this discussion. Maybe by the same EO addicts. I have spent some time trying to obtain some understanding of the theology of "theosis," but I have always eventually became lost and confused by trying to follow the hypothetical statements and reasoning of comprehending the intricacies of God. I am also completely in the dark concerning the seeming EO "red herring" regarding the theology of "prayers for the dead." We don't use the Byzantine imperial intonations to remember, seemingly all of the dead in Christ, during each Divine Liturgy, but I hope we don't fail to remember and mention every worthy soul.
I resort, at least in brief thought, to "claimed" EO traditional Orthodox theologians nearly every day. I don't think that the struggling Orthodox "man in the pew" and his/her priest would benefit from (but would be spiritually damaged by) the imperial (hypocritical) announcement/act of unity of belief and communion between Pope Shenouda, Metro Philip, Greek this, Russian that (except ROCOR), etc., etc.. We all need to put our own theological/spiritual houses in order before they are worthy of seriously entertaining anyone else, in the Name of Jesus Christ and His Holy Apostles.
Keep looking for the good medicine. Share it with all of us. I've always thought that Coptic (and Ethiopean) theology and leadership could greatly benefit from some strong, serious, disciplined EO (Imperial) theology of iconography. God Bless your pilgrimage. Please pray for me, and for all young EO and OO fathers and their children.
[quote author=Mikhael link=topic=13642.msg161167#msg161167 date=1353044129]
1. Ehh I've actually read some of the Coptic theology, and I do see some stuff sidling dangerously close to monophysitism, though I will take non-Chalcedonians at their word that they are Miaphysites.
I find Leo's Tome more than dangerously close to Nestorianism but I don't go to a EO online forum and accuse them of Nestorianism while simultanously claim I'm open to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think if one really wants to give someone the benefit of the doubt on a controversial issue that is diachronically polar to their core belief, one must be willing to accept and proceed with the belief that everything they learned about the opposite position is wrong and the opposite position was right all along. If one can't do this, then the very least "good faith" courtesy is to avoid antagonizing an entire creed or people in their own house, even if provoked by a misguided person. Again before you make accusation against a leader we would die for, you should make sure your information is correct. Regardless of the particular theology Pope Shenouda taught us that you have issue with, the use of broad generalization without any detail raises a red flag. If you would like to discuss these issues, ask first with an open mind, not a priori condemnation of "downright blasphemous". Again, I believe you made this comment in response to irishpilgrim's attack on Eastern Orthodoxy. But don't do the same thing he did. Again, you already are going on priori condemnation that both Pope Shenouda and Fr Matta were not Orthodox in their theology. I would refrain from accusations without details to substantiate them. I would not take any of these things and still call them Orthodox. Are you so sure Pope Shenouda wasn't a new St Athanasius or St Cyril? Are you so sure having a new St John Chrysostom will make everything better? Afterall, St John Chrysostom was in fact condemned in a council for Origenism. He was exonorated post-mortem but the ecclesiastical milieu was not peaceful because of an eloquant speaker like St John Chrysostom. It is God who will bring peace in his time on his terms to those who seek peace. I have no idea what you said or what you believe Pope Shenouda said. "Protestant influence" is again a broad term that means different things to different people and nothing in total. Again, if you would like to discuss, we can but in an open minded, peace-seeking heart with no racism. I do not disagree with your comments against irishpilgrims but your last sentence again shows contempt for anything that is non-Chalcedonian. From a Chalcedonian view, what you said is common knowledge. From a non-Chalcedonian view, what you said is ignorance because the Copts are Orthodox and communion with Eastern Orthodox Churches does not superceed communion with Christ. That being said, knowing you are Chalcedonian doesn't mean I take what you said as anti-Coptic but inappropriate in a Coptic forum.
Forgive me for offending. I feel it is necessary to clarify that some of the ideas you may have inadvertantly given against the Copts require some more thought. I apologize if irishpilgrim's post offended you because he is not the voice of Coptic Orthodoxy.
Mikhael, maybe your tone changed because you took offense to irishpilgrim's words. Believe me you're not the first one. But I have a few concerns about what you wrote. I will try to be as open minded and peaceful as possible.
[quote author=Mikhael link=topic=13642.msg161167#msg161167 date=1353044129]
1. Ehh I've actually read some of the Coptic theology, and I do see some stuff sidling dangerously close to monophysitism, though I will take non-Chalcedonians at their word that they are Miaphysites.
I find Leo's Tome more than dangerously close to Nestorianism but I don't go to a EO online forum and accuse them of Nestorianism while simultanously claim I'm open to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think if one really wants to give someone the benefit of the doubt on a controversial issue that is diachronically polar to their core belief, one must be willing to accept and proceed with the belief that everything they learned about the opposite position is wrong and the opposite position was right all along. If one can't do this, then the very least "good faith" courtesy is to avoid antagonizing an entire creed or people in their own house, even if provoked by a misguided person. Again before you make accusation against a leader we would die for, you should make sure your information is correct. Regardless of the particular theology Pope Shenouda taught us that you have issue with, the use of broad generalization without any detail raises a red flag. If you would like to discuss these issues, ask first with an open mind, not a priori condemnation of "downright blasphemous". Again, I believe you made this comment in response to irishpilgrim's attack on Eastern Orthodoxy. But don't do the same thing he did. Again, you already are going on priori condemnation that both Pope Shenouda and Fr Matta were not Orthodox in their theology. I would refrain from accusations without details to substantiate them. I would not take any of these things and still call them Orthodox. Are you so sure Pope Shenouda wasn't a new St Athanasius or St Cyril? Are you so sure having a new St John Chrysostom will make everything better? Afterall, St John Chrysostom was in fact condemned in a council for Origenism. He was exonorated post-mortem but the ecclesiastical milieu was not peaceful because of an eloquant speaker like St John Chrysostom. It is God who will bring peace in his time on his terms to those who seek peace. I have no idea what you said or what you believe Pope Shenouda said. "Protestant influence" is again a broad term that means different things to different people and nothing in total. Again, if you would like to discuss, we can but in an open minded, peace-seeking heart with no racism. I do not disagree with your comments against irishpilgrims but your last sentence again shows contempt for anything that is non-Chalcedonian. From a Chalcedonian view, what you said is common knowledge. From a non-Chalcedonian view, what you said is ignorance because the Copts are Orthodox and communion with Eastern Orthodox Churches does not superceed communion with Christ. That being said, knowing you are Chalcedonian doesn't mean I take what you said as anti-Coptic but inappropriate in a Coptic forum.
Forgive me for offending. I feel it is necessary to clarify that some of the ideas you may have inadvertantly given against the Copts require some more thought. I apologize if irishpilgrim's post offended you because he is not the voice of Coptic Orthodoxy.
Forgive me, your objections are most valid, and I regret much of my tone.
Concerning the Tome of Leo, I agree with you that it could be misconstrued for Nestorianism. It certainly isn't perfect which is why the Church had to check it against the writings of St. Cyril contrary to what Roman Catholics believe.
Concerning Pope Shenouda: I sincerely ask forgiveness of any Copts offended by my tone in this. I was trying to point out that his objections to the Church he left and is bashing are superficial and not unique to the EO (western influence happens in the west to both OO and EO unfortunately), and that there are serious issues of dogma that a former EO should recognize. Some of Pope Shenouda's writings on the eucharist, divinization, and prayers for the departed do not coincide with Orthodoxy at all, and I stand by that-- I consider them greater issues than Miaphysitism (which can easily be reconciled, I believe) and I wouldn't accept reunion until these are resolved. However, I wish to make it clear that these theological missteps, as great as they may be, are but flaws on an absolute jewel of a hierarch who I know meant only to glorify God in his writings. I have the utmost respect for His Holiness Pope Shenouda III-- he's one of the greatest things to happen to the Coptic Church from what I've seen. His openness to dialogue without budging on important matters of Orthodoxy, is commendable, and how I believe my own Church should pursue dialogue with other creeds.
I thank you for your rebuke. I wasn't being charitable at all, but rather reprimanding someone whom I consider to have bitterly "jumped ship" and is now attacking it. I hope that one day, we will be one Orthodox ship-- when things like prayers for the dead and theosis are resolved that we may concelebrate as brothers.
I've heard some bad things about the East Coast Churches, with the exception of Pennsylvania Orthodoxy (in general). I'm not familiar with the "Lavender Mafia" what is that?
I agree that Pennsylvania is good and Orthodox, and I actually thought of that after I posted my thoughts. I'm glad you brought them up.
The term "Lavender Mafia" comes from a comment our former Metropolitan made about a trend within certain corners of the OCA that is pushing a modernist and feminist agenda, trying to loosen the Church's definitions of traditional marriage, etc. You see this on the East Coast, like I said, but also on the West Coast. However, that's not to say that there aren't traditional Orthodox parishes and priests on the West Coast; there are. You just have to go looking for them. There are a lot of things to dislike about the OCA right now. That's partly why I'm on tasbeha in the first place and interested in Coptic Orthodoxy. Most definitely, as much as ROCOR is touted as a bastion of sound Orthodoxy, it has done less to shake off Peter the not-so-Great's Latin-ish reforms as the OCA has. I've also heard that not all of the convert priests among the Antiochians have let go of their Protestantism.
I agree.
In my useless opinion, the OCA is a weird phenomenon. I kind of see us as being caught between Greece and Russia, or Antioch and Russia. Some priests wear Greek vestments and some wear Russian ones. Some wear both. Some priests graduated from St. Tikhon's seminary, and some from St. Vladimir's (the latter being more modernist and liberal/scholarly). Some aren't crazy about monasticism, and some are. Some parishes use only Russian-style chant, and others use a combination of both Greek and Russian. Some "feel" like a good-ol' Russian parish, and some feel like a gathering of freshly converted Protestants. So, yeah, it just depends.
Also, what was the reason for eliminating prayers for the dead?
So, does the Coptic Church pray for the departed?
Yes.
While we are on the subject, perhaps we could come to a better understanding of the issues I've brought up. I went back and reread some of Fr. Matta's writings and then Metropolitan Bishoy and it seems that the issue they were dealing with was whether one could partake in the essence of God, which isn't Orthodox either and +Bishoy was correct to stand against it. Still there doesn't seem to be any emphasis of true Theosis and then there is the quote from HH Pope Shenouda: "Our Master Christ said 'He who eats my body and drinks my blood' not 'He who eats my divinity and drinks my divinity'" and other such things. That actually sounds more Nestorian than monophysite, but perhaps I am missing context again.
Also, what was the reason for eliminating prayers for the dead?
About the whole "drinking/eating the Divinity" part... The late Pope was right to stand against it. When we partake of the Eucharist we eat the flesh and blood of the Incarnate Word which is united *to* the Divinity. The Divinity of our Lord is intangible and incorporeal, it is inedible because it cannot be chewed with our teeth. Nevertheless, we do "partake of the Divine nature" when consuming the Eucharist because the body and blood are united hypostatically with Christ's Divine nature, human soul, and human spirit.
St. Cyril says:
"When we eat [the Eucharist], we are not consuming the Godhead—perish the awful thought—but the Word's own flesh, which has been made life-giving because it is the flesh of him who lives because of the Father." [Contra Nestorium 4. 5 (ACO 1. 1. 6. 85)]
[quote author=Mikhael link=topic=13642.msg161193#msg161193 date=1353131136]
While we are on the subject, perhaps we could come to a better understanding of the issues I've brought up. I went back and reread some of Fr. Matta's writings and then Metropolitan Bishoy and it seems that the issue they were dealing with was whether one could partake in the essence of God, which isn't Orthodox either and +Bishoy was correct to stand against it. Still there doesn't seem to be any emphasis of true Theosis and then there is the quote from HH Pope Shenouda: "Our Master Christ said 'He who eats my body and drinks my blood' not 'He who eats my divinity and drinks my divinity'" and other such things. That actually sounds more Nestorian than monophysite, but perhaps I am missing context again.
Also, what was the reason for eliminating prayers for the dead?
About the whole "drinking/eating the Divinity" part... The late Pope was right to stand against it. When we partake of the Eucharist we eat the flesh and blood of the Incarnate Word which is united *to* the Divinity. The Divinity of our Lord is intangible and incorporeal, it is inedible because it cannot be chewed with our teeth. Nevertheless, we do "partake of the Divine nature" when consuming the Eucharist because the body and blood are united hypostatically with Christ's Divine nature, human soul, and human spirit.
St. Cyril says:
"When we eat [the Eucharist], we are not consuming the Godhead—perish the awful thought—but the Word's own flesh, which has been made life-giving because it is the flesh of him who lives because of the Father." [Contra Nestorium 4. 5 (ACO 1. 1. 6. 85)]
Ah, I see what he's getting at. Does he have any writing on the Orthodox understanding of Theosis of partaking of the energies of God and becoming what He is by nature through grace? Perhaps I am unrealistic in my desire for Copts to teach Theosis just as we do having never had St. Gregory Palamas in your Church. Does the Coptic Church object to the Orthodox distinction between essence and energies as the Roman Catholics do?
[quote author=arsenios link=topic=13642.msg161190#msg161190 date=1353129638]
So, does the Coptic Church pray for the departed?
Yes.
I misspoke, the omission I was speaking of was prayer for those in Hades or Gehennah similar to the EO kneeling prayers of Pentecost. I have read that prayer for those in Hades and Gehennah were removed because it is "impossible for the dead to benefit from them".
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13642.msg161195#msg161195 date=1353131726]
[quote author=Mikhael link=topic=13642.msg161193#msg161193 date=1353131136]
While we are on the subject, perhaps we could come to a better understanding of the issues I've brought up. I went back and reread some of Fr. Matta's writings and then Metropolitan Bishoy and it seems that the issue they were dealing with was whether one could partake in the essence of God, which isn't Orthodox either and +Bishoy was correct to stand against it. Still there doesn't seem to be any emphasis of true Theosis and then there is the quote from HH Pope Shenouda: "Our Master Christ said 'He who eats my body and drinks my blood' not 'He who eats my divinity and drinks my divinity'" and other such things. That actually sounds more Nestorian than monophysite, but perhaps I am missing context again.
Also, what was the reason for eliminating prayers for the dead?
About the whole "drinking/eating the Divinity" part... The late Pope was right to stand against it. When we partake of the Eucharist we eat the flesh and blood of the Incarnate Word which is united *to* the Divinity. The Divinity of our Lord is intangible and incorporeal, it is inedible because it cannot be chewed with our teeth. Nevertheless, we do "partake of the Divine nature" when consuming the Eucharist because the body and blood are united hypostatically with Christ's Divine nature, human soul, and human spirit.
St. Cyril says:
"When we eat [the Eucharist], we are not consuming the Godhead—perish the awful thought—but the Word's own flesh, which has been made life-giving because it is the flesh of him who lives because of the Father." [Contra Nestorium 4. 5 (ACO 1. 1. 6. 85)]
Ah, I see what he's getting at. Does he have any writing on the Orthodox understanding of Theosis of partaking of the energies of God and becoming what He is by nature through grace? Perhaps I am unrealistic in my desire for Copts to teach Theosis just as we do having never had St. Gregory Palamas in your Church. Does the Coptic Church object to the Orthodox distinction between essence and energies as the Roman Catholics do?
Not to my knowledge, as even St. Basil the Great made the distinction. There is an article by HG Bishop Youssef on suscopts.org that discusses the issue.
Ah, I see what he's getting at. Does he have any writing on the Orthodox understanding of Theosis of partaking of the energies of God and becoming what He is by nature through grace?
Isn't it St. Cyril who taught the "rod in the fire" analogy? Or was it the "wooden stick in the fire" analogy? As far as I know, which is very little, that is a teaching on theosis without calling it theosis.
But I know for sure you can find that in St. Athanasius the Great, who is one of Coptic Orthodoxy's pillars. He's also one of our pillars, too. Check out St. Athanasius' "Letter to Epictetus", and his work "On the Incarnation."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/athanasius/incarnation.html
[quote author=Mikhael link=topic=13642.msg161196#msg161196 date=1353133036]
Ah, I see what he's getting at. Does he have any writing on the Orthodox understanding of Theosis of partaking of the energies of God and becoming what He is by nature through grace?
Isn't it St. Cyril who taught the "rod in the fire" analogy? Or was it the "wooden stick in the fire" analogy? As far as I know, which is very little, that is a teaching on theosis without calling it theosis.
But I know for sure you can find that in St. Athanasius the Great, who is one of Coptic Orthodoxy's pillars. He's also one of our pillars, too. Check out St. Athanasius' "Letter to Epictetus", and his work "On the Incarnation."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/athanasius/incarnation.html
Exactly!
This is why the objection to Theosis and Dr. Bebawi among modern Copts has perplexed me so much, because it's historic Coptic teaching. I need to do more research.
St. Cyril says:
"When we eat [the Eucharist], we are not consuming the Godhead—perish the awful thought—but the Word's own flesh, which has been made life-giving because it is the flesh of him who lives because of the Father." [Contra Nestorium 4. 5 (ACO 1. 1. 6. 85)]
That pretty much sums it up. Maybe my Christology is more Non-Chalcedonian than Chalcedonian at this point.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13642.msg161195#msg161195 date=1353131726]
St. Cyril says:
"When we eat [the Eucharist], we are not consuming the Godhead—perish the awful thought—but the Word's own flesh, which has been made life-giving because it is the flesh of him who lives because of the Father." [Contra Nestorium 4. 5 (ACO 1. 1. 6. 85)]
That pretty much sums it up. Maybe my Christology is more Non-Chalcedonian than Chalcedonian at this point.
St. Cyril is an EO Saint too and was referred to in Chalcedon to make sure that Pope Leo's Tome was Orthodox. So, maybe, maybe not. From what I've read, it's really only certain emphases that contrast our Christologies. I actually get really irritated with EO peers who stubbornly assert that Non-Chalcedonians are monophysites.