Hi, can someone explain me the differences? I heard it was just semantics?
Our priests and their priests definately wear the same kind of clothes at least.
Is there any news on whether we will be one again with the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches??
Thanks
Comments
Is there any news on whether we will be one again with the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches??
There are a lot of talks between the two sides regarding re-union.
But as it stands, it seems the Chalcedonians will not agree to reunion unless the non-Chalcedonians accept all 7 Ecumenical Councils.
Likewise, the non-Chalcedonians refuse to accept these 4 extra councils as ecumenical, and will not agree to any reunion that involves such acceptance.
So for now it looks like reunion is still far off, since neither side is willing to compromise.
THis is so strange as even with 7 councils, as far as i remember, we only differed on the council of chalcedon.
For goodness sake, this is silly, it was my COptic priest and my Coptic Spiritual advisor that told me to read the Philokalia ages ago... and that's a Chalcedonian book!!!
What are the 7 Ecumenical Councils, and what was decided for each council.
They were essentially reactions to various heresies, which are seen as having upheld the true Faith.
They are:
Nicea - dealt with Arianism
Constantinople - completed the Creed
Ephesus - Nestorianism
(these three are accepted by the non-Chalcedonians)
Chalcedon - the relationship between Christ's humanity and divinity
2 Constantinople - affirmed previous Councils
3 Constantinople - monothelitism
2 Nicea - iconoclasm Yes, that was what led to the schism. But the Chalcedonians accept another 3 Councils held after that one, which the non-Chalcedonians also reject. Its a good one as well ;)
I see what you are saying. Do you feel its likely that we'll be one with the other orthodox churches?? I mean, we're stuck with Ethiopians, Sudanese, Armenians, Syrians and Indian Orthodox Churches, of which we are in communion with.
My point, we are in communion with 5 other churches that i've never really seen. LOL. They don't exist. I've never met someone from any of the above churches; and if i have, they probably go to Catholic Churches anyway.
When i went to the Russian Orthodox Church, they said to me :"Ohhh! You're Coptic.. well.. there's a bunch of Ethiopians that go to the Greek Orthodox Church too". LOL
I hope people reading this thread understand my problem: ALthough im proud to be Coptic, and wouldnt change it for the world, its a very very isolating feeling being coptic in a country where there are no coptic Churches. Imagine what your life would be like if there were no coptic churches where you live??? Of course you'd want to know when the next ecumenical meeting would be to sort this stuff out.
As for the presence of faithful from our Sister Churches, it just depends where you live I guess. There seems to be progress in the pursuit of pan-Orthodox activities in the U.S. See this video of the 2006 OOCA youth conference for example:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8127393991153819912&q=ooca
P.S. The very warm reception you seem to be experiencing at the Russian Orthodox Parish is not one you'd be likely to experience at all EO parishes. It is pleasing however that you have been received with warmth and love rather than polemics. I agree with the idea that you should attend a Russian Orthodox parish instead of an RC parish in the absence of any OO parish. Still, have you consulted your Bishop about this?
P.P.S. You are not communing at this Russian Orthodox parish are you? I highly doubt they would allow you to commune with them, but in the unlikely event that they choose to offer you dispensation by virtue of the principle of economy, this would still be something you would have to consult a Bishop about; dispensation must be two-way.
No.. i didnt have communion yet in the russian orthodox. But the priest said "I will never deny a Copt from having Communion in my Church".
I didnt have communion because i didnt confess, nor i didnt speak with the priest before going.
Iqbal... listen - put yourself in my shoes : There are no Coptic Orthodox Churches in Paris - would you deprive yourself of Holy Communion because of that ???
My bishop KNOWS very well that i even have communion at the RC. He knows!
I even met other Copts in the Russian church because of the same reason: there are no COptic churches near by. If i had a car, i'd go to a Coptic Church.. but without a car, its literally impossible.
It is a unique phenomena that seems to relate only to ascetics, for in like manner, both our Church and the Chalcedonian Church read the works of St. Isaac the Syrian who was in fact of the Nestorian Church.
Would you say that the nature of asceticism (their relative independance) is what allows for someone technically outside the canonical boundaries of the Church to be considered part of the Church, even a Saint?
Then again, St. Isaac was not merely an ascetic, but a Bishop of the Nestorian church; so perhaps there is a different justification for such acceptance.
Its something I find interesting with regards to the question of reunion, so wouldn't mind your take on this issue.
Thanks
There seem to be more than just a mere one or two occurences of both our Churches recognising Saints from other Churches, or even if not recognising them as canonised Saints, holding them in high regard. This is particularly the case for figures in the highly tense period of the late fifth-sixth centuries. For example, as far as I'm aware, your Church holds St. Jacob of Serug (an ascetic) in high regard, even though he was strongly affiliated with the likes of St. Severus of Antioch. Furthermore, St. Peter the Iberian is, I believe, venerated as a Saint by the Georgian Orthodox Church; he too was highly ascetic in character, yet also a Bishop, and a strongly anti-Chalcedonian Bishop at that.
It is also somewhat hazy when we consider the desert Fathers of Palestine/Gaza/Egypt; most of the desert Fathers seem to have wanted nothing to do with the Christological controversies, making it hard to discern what their exact position on Chalcedon was--nevertheless, most of these Fathers are considered Saints, or at least highly regarded by both our Churches.
Then there are Fathers who give a slightly confused picture; Sts. Barsanuphius and John of Gaza for example refused to regard non-Chalcedonians as heretics and disallowed their disciples from calling non-Chalcedonians heretics. Furthermore, they employed strongly non-Chalcedonian rhetoric, and placed a very non-Chalcedonian emphasis on the need to avoid Nestorianism in all its shapes and forms. On the other hand, they encouraged submission to the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Jerusalem (though I'm not sure if there was even a non-Chalcedonian Patriarch of Jerusalem at that time, hence their encouragement can be interpreted in a number of ways).