WHY CAN'T THEY JUST LIFT THE ANATHEMAS AND UNITE! ITS BEEN LIKE 15 YEARS SINCE THE LAST MEETING!
Feelings towards us are growing colder and more volatile by the day. People are becoming more extreme in view as time continues to go by.
Why can't we summon a Great Ecumenical Council and solve this tragedy once and for all? Wouldn't that be the only logical way to formally lift anathemas on both sides? Haven't previous councils lifted anathemas before (I'm sure they did...)?
Are the monks at Mount Athos the only obstacle?
What is the most recent update on this issue?
If they already agreed that we are Orthodox, then what is the hold up? Are they backsliding?
Do we have to accept their 7 councils? What would be the problem? Don't we essentially agree with councils 5,6, & 7 (excluding the anathemas of St. Severus & others)?
Wouldn't Chalcedon's anathemas have to be amended by another Ecumenical Council?
Can't Ecumenical Councils clarify each other (supposedly 5,6 & 7 further clarified Chalcedon)? If we had another council, can't that clarify the whole dispute?
What in the world are we (or they) waiting for? The Church has enough divisions, and uniting the 2 Orthodox families may be the first step in the right direction. We aren't growing any younger...
Read This:
http://www.svots.edu/content/beyond-dialogue-quest-eastern-and-oriental-orthodox-unity-todayInput from Fathers and layman alike are welcome
;)
Comments
while you wait, you can pray for the bishops (maybe find one EO and one OO bishop to pray for by name in your area) and the priests who work hard on this problem.
visit EO churches and show our brothers love and peace and patience.
go on EO website forums and participate in useful and kind dialogue.
once you have done all this, and formed good relationships with the various orthodox churches in your area, you could ask if they need help arranging events together so that you help to prepare the way for the churches to be united.
there is no point in the bishops doing all the work if we are ignorant about the other churches and are not united in practice.
i think you will find enough to keep you busy while you wait!
;)
For example Russian church it is absolutly new church that was created in 1928.After 1917 in this country live also new people.They write religious books that differ too much from the books of 19 century.Christians in this country went abroad or catacumbs and more than 50 mln.christians were killed.Read please in Vikipedia.I was living in the Soviet Union.
If this is indeed true, then why should this evil separation continue to live on any longer? For the sake of politics? Shall we wait until the sin of pride and self-righteousness creeps in to both our Churches and divide us even further?
What do you think God thinks of all of this? Do we worship a separated God, or a united God? How will God react when He looks down at His beautiful Church, which He purchased with His own blood, and sees it splintered and divided due to the pride of men?
How will God judge us for separating His Church? Maybe we personally did not separate it, but to let it it persist may be an even greater error.
To be clear, the Orthodox Churches must unite because our faiths are identical. We have not changed like the Protestants or even the Catholics. To let this division continue to live and breed is a sin on our souls that we wish not to bear...
I do not understand what you complain about.
I am against this unity for many reasons, but just considering the reality around us, anyone has to realize that unity is already established, but maybe not officially pronounced yet.
Consider the following:
a) A chalcedonian does not need to get baptized or confirmed in the Church if he wants to join the services of the Orthodox Church (I only refer to the "Oriental" Church as Orthodox). Meaning, the first two sacraments are accepted in the church. This is translated to acceptance of their faith.
b) Communion is defacto established, as no Orthodox priest (at least not a Coptic one) will reject any Greek or Russian from communion under any circumstances. Communion is the height of unity and is its foundation in the same time, so in reality they are united to us. I am not talking about exceptions or isolated instances, I am talking about mainstream practice.
c) Inter-marriage is allowed without any reservations, except for some organizational rules. If the sacrament is celebrated in the Chalcedonian church, we are forced to accept it.
d) Our libraries is full of literature written by the Chalcedonians. Our youth quote John of Damascus readily when they do not know who Severus is. Some of them think Severus is a heretic, and other are convinced Severus is indeed a heretic because they are full of John of Damascus and other Chalcedonian writers. Even the modern Chalcedonian writers are handsomely represented in our libraries and have invaded our thoughts and occupied the Church theology.
e) We have Chalcedonians speakers invited to our meetings in almost every retreat and in many regular meetings. They appear next to bishops and priests who seem to have no problem with it.
f) Their theologians are quoted frequently in our literature and sermons. Maximus, Damascus, Theodret and even Leo of Rome (yes, THE Leo of Rome) are quoted freely and easily among clergy and servants alike.
g) Many of the Copts in North America ,mostly the rich among them, have joined Chalcedonian churches, for reasons related to the laxity offered by these churches on spiritual issues and their modern outlook. No particular effort is made to bring them back, simply because these churches are accepted as Orthodox by us.
So really, what are you complaining about? What more could a unity seeker like you ask for? It should be us, the true and faithful Orthodox, who complain about this unity as we see its grave dangers. There is no necessity for unity. There is a necessity for salvation and to provide all its means. The Orthodox Church produced saints while we were separated from the Chalcedonian. We flourished spiritually and history just testifies for the greatness of the Church in spiritual domains. It is only in recent times, through unity, that we suffered spiritually.
Is unity with Chalcedonians necessary for our salvation? NO. Otherwise, Pope Kyrillos VI and thousands of saints who lived pre-unity would be in hell now.
Have a nice one.
This is not a novelty. It was prescribed by the greatest of our Saints.
a) A chalcedonian does not need to get baptized or confirmed in the Church if he wants to join the services of the Orthodox Church (I only refer to the "Oriental" Church as Orthodox). Meaning, the first two sacraments are accepted in the church. This is translated to acceptance of their faith.
I have seen and heard of many Coptic Churches that confirm Eastern Orthodox with Holy Chrism. I heard that this is not a correct practice, but it still happens due to the confused relationship between our two Orthodox Churches. I believe if we were officially unified, this error would be officially resolved.
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=11593.msg139547#msg139547 date=1308154848]
(I only refer to the "Oriental" Church as Orthodox).
Are the Eastern Orthodox less “Orthodox” then we are? Can that even be accurately measured? Continuing to use the attitude of “only Oriental Orthodox are truly Orthodox” only widens the divide between our respective Churches.
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=11593.msg139547#msg139547 date=1308154848]
b) Communion is defacto established, as no Orthodox priest (at least not a Coptic one) will reject any Greek or Russian from communion under any circumstances.
I have never heard of this. It may be a common practice in the area where you reside, but I have never heard of a modern Coptic Priest giving communion to an Eastern Orthodox Church member without being first officially confirmed in the Coptic Church.
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=11593.msg139547#msg139547 date=1308154848]
Communion is the height of unity and is its foundation in the same time, so in reality they are united to us. I am not talking about exceptions or isolated instances, I am talking about mainstream practice.
But are we united to them? Maybe we accept Eastern Orthodox in our Churches, but do they accept us? Can we go and take communion in an Eastern Orthodox Church? Don’t think so. If I were able to do that, then this topic wouldn’t be all that important.
The way I see it, we are united to them, but they are not united to us. This is where the problem lies.
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=11593.msg139547#msg139547 date=1308154848]
c) Inter-marriage is allowed without any reservations, except for some organizational rules. If the sacrament is celebrated in the Chalcedonian church, we are forced to accept it.
True.
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=11593.msg139547#msg139547 date=1308154848]
d) Our libraries is full of literature written by the Chalcedonians. Our youth quote John of Damascus readily when they do not know who Severus is. Some of them think Severus is a heretic, and other are convinced Severus is indeed a heretic because they are full of John of Damascus and other Chalcedonian writers. Even the modern Chalcedonian writers are handsomely represented in our libraries and have invaded our thoughts and occupied the Church theology.
I understand your concern of Chalcedonian thinkers having influence on our Oriental Orthodox youth. Our faiths are both Orthodox, but we do not ignore our previous differences. Yes, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, St. Severus still is a heretic (as well as St. Dioscorus among others). Which is why if we were to officially unite, anathemas could be formally lifted and the problem of which you speak wouldn’t be of much concern. What would be considered heresy would be based on a particular viewpoint rather than a particular person – and that would solve the problem.
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=11593.msg139547#msg139547 date=1308154848]
e) We have Chalcedonians speakers invited to our meetings in almost every retreat and in many regular meetings. They appear next to bishops and priests who seem to have no problem with it.
Really? Where does this occur?
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=11593.msg139547#msg139547 date=1308154848]
f) Their theologians are quoted frequently in our literature and sermons. Maximus, Damascus, Theodret and even Leo of Rome (yes, THE Leo of Rome) are quoted freely and easily among clergy and servants alike.
True. But, Theodoret of Cyrus and Leo of Rome? I have heard Maximus quoted, as well as Seraphim of Sarov, but never Theodoret or Leo. Again, if we held a formal Council, which I hope will happen sometime before the Second Coming of Our Lord, this problem could be resolved as we would agree on an official list of accepted Saints.
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=11593.msg139547#msg139547 date=1308154848]
g) Many of the Copts in North America ,mostly the rich among them, have joined Chalcedonian churches, for reasons related to the laxity offered by these churches on spiritual issues and their modern outlook. No particular effort is made to bring them back, simply because these churches are accepted as Orthodox by us.
The Eastern Orthodox have a modern outlook? Last I heard, the Eastern Orthodox were accusing us of the heresy of ecumenism…
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=11593.msg139547#msg139547 date=1308154848]
So really, what are you complaining about? What more could a unity seeker like you ask for? It should be us, the true and faithful Orthodox, who complain about this unity as we see its grave dangers.
The Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox have a confused relationship. Some Oriental Churches use Chrism to confirm Eastern Orthodox, others don’t. Some Eastern Orthodox welcome us as Orthodox brethren, others still view us as monophysites.
A formal Council, or something similar, that is officially recognized on both sides, is what seems appropriate.
How could unity with fellow Orthodox brethren be deemed dangerous? Wouldn’t we be more united, which would lead to greater missionary and evangelistic efforts?
Wouldn’t a united Orthodox Church be better than one that holds grudges and is confused as to how to address the other?
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=11593.msg139547#msg139547 date=1308154848]
It is only in recent times, through unity, that we suffered spiritually.
I don’t think we’re fully united yet. Many Eastern Orthodox still view us as heretics. And as time goes by, these views may become dogmatized (if they aren’t already). So as to prevent this divide from widening further, as well as to prevent viewpoints from being misinterpreted again (recall Chalcedon), we need another official Ecumenical Council. If we officially become enemies, this is when we will truly suffer spiritually.
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=11593.msg139547#msg139547 date=1308154848]
Is unity with Chalcedonians necessary for our salvation? NO. Otherwise, Pope Kyrillos VI and thousands of saints who lived pre-unity would be in hell now.
I understand that God judges the heart and actions of every person, regardless of which Orthodox Church they may belong to (St. Isaac the Syrian comes to mind). But I believe that unity is more necessary now than ever before
As you have mentioned, look how far we have come. Isn’t unity among our brethren something to be heartily desired? Something to strive for?
The Orthodox Church is one Church, and if there is a divide, even if it is figurative and not literal, why let it persist? Time will only make views harsher and more partisan on both sides.
If the Orthodox Churches cannot resolve their own divides, how is there any hope for the rest of Christianity?
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=11593.msg139547#msg139547 date=1308154848]
I do not understand what you complain about.
All I ask for is an end to our confused relationship between each other. An Ecumenical Council, which leads to full accepted unity on both sides, is something very much worth hoping and praying for.
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=11593.msg139547#msg139547 date=1308154848]
Have a nice one.
You too. I enjoyed your insight. 8)
The Fathers of our Church have always accepted the sacraments of the Chalcedonians.
This is not a novelty. It was prescribed by the greatest of our Saints.
Then why do they not accept our Sacraments? Many say that because we are not part of the Eastern Orthodox Church, our Sacraments are invalid. I hope this is not the view of the majority...
Why do some Oriental Orthodox Churches use Holy Chrism to confirm incoming Eastern Orthodox?
Thank you Father for your your help in this matter. I know that you are a leading voice of wisdom on this topic. 8)
I think it shows quite an Orthodoxy on the Oriental Family to be willing to forgive all of this martyrdom. I also would say it shows a Christian level of Ecclesiastical conduct.
Despite the view of the EO of whether we are "orthodox" or not; whether we are "accepted" by them or not; is shadowed by the fact that they have not commented in a Christian fashion towards these ecclesiastical genocides. Whether we are Christian or not, whether we are orthodox or not, whether we are poor or not, whether we are hellenic or not, did not give them the right to raise the sword of persecution.
They have never apologized or put into perspective the harm that they carried out towards the overall History of Christianity.
If the greatest sin of the Latin Church is the helping in the establishment of Protestantism, then most certainly the greatest sin of the EO is the helpful establishment of Islam and its conquest in the Middle East.
The OO are paying the painful price for both sins.
If the blood of the righteous Abel cried out to God, then I think the blood of our martyrs cry out for an answer as to why they were slaughtered.
I think it shows quite an Orthodoxy on the Oriental Family to be willing to forgive all of this martyrdom. I also would say it shows a Christian level of Ecclesiastical conduct.
Despite the view of the EO of whether we are "orthodox" or not; whether we are "accepted" by them or not; is shadowed by the fact that they have not commented in a Christian fashion towards these ecclesiastical genocides. Whether we are Christian or not, whether we are orthodox or not, whether we are poor or not, whether we are hellenic or not, did not give them the right to raise the sword of persecution.
They have never apologized or put into perspective the harm that they carried out towards the overall History of Christianity.
If the greatest sin of the Latin Church is the helping in the establishment of Protestantism, then most certainly the greatest sin of the EO is the helpful establishment of Islam and its conquest in the Middle East.
The OO are paying the painful price for both sins.
A list of some specific points as to how the Eastern Orthodox persecuted the Oriental Orthodox throughout history would be helpful. When I say persecuted, I do not mean persecuted under imperial authority or the state, but directly by the Church itself.
The Church gave sanction and participated in these genocides. A given general also had a dual role as a bishop. Some of the usurper Patriarchs carried out both roles. In other situations they called on the Imperial Army to impose their mandates on the Orientals.
The Ecumenical Patriarch is considered the caretaker for the Emperor.
The EO carries the responsibility and hope of crowning an Emperor for the resurgence of the Byzantine Empire.
The real issue relies upon them having to admit they committed murder and genocide.
The other aspect is of Imperial aspirations for the Byzantine Family.
The Orientals have taken on a brotherly tone, unanimously, among all the different traditions within this Family. This spirit is lead by His Holiness Pope Shenouda--himself.
The tone from the Byzantines (not all, but the leading factions) has been, dare I say the words: unfriendly and arrogant.
The Imperial = the Byzantine Church through those eras.
The Church gave sanction and participated in these genocides. A given general also had a dual role as a bishop. Some of the usurper Patriarchs carried out both roles. In other situations they called on the Imperial Army to impose their mandates on the Orientals.
The Ecumenical Patriarch is considered the caretaker for the Emperor.
The EO carries the responsibility and hope of crowning an Emperor for the resurgence of the Byzantine Empire.
The real issue relies upon them having to admit they committed murder and genocide.
The other aspect is of Imperial aspirations for the Byzantine Family.
The Orientals have taken on a brotherly tone, unanimously, among all the different traditions within this Family. This spirit is lead by His Holiness Pope Shenouda--himself.
The tone from the Byzantines (not all, but the leading factions) has been, dare I say the words: unfriendly and arrogant.
The most Christian and Orthodox thing a fellow Church can do is attempt to reunite and cover the sins of others, just as Christ Himself covered our shameful and arrogant sins.
Do you really think that the Eastern Orthodox just want to resurrect the Byzantine Empire...in this day and age? This may have been a goal, centuries ago, but is this mentality really that prevalent now? What are your sources? Besides, what Church is 100% without its faults or mishaps? Is anything human ever 100% infallible? (excluding things that are Divinely Inspired).
I agree with you that the Eastern Orthodox have not willingly stretched out their hand for unity, and that any efforts have been initiated by us. But if this is the case, we would receive the greater blessing; not only for being the lowly persecuted Church, but by being the Church that decides to forgive and show love even in the face of such arrogance. "Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing" (1 Peter 3:8-9).
In my opinion, this is what the martyrs would want and these are the principles they died for. "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven..." (Matthew 5:44-45). Every Christian knows this verse. If we can make their deaths produce love through reconciliation, isn't that the least we can do for them now?
I actually watched an excellent documentary about these monks and found them to be serious men of God. I recommend you'll take a look at it. Type in 'Mt. Athos' on Youtube and you will find it. It was produced by CBS's 60 minutes.
The monks of Mt. Athos exert their influence indirectly.
Pope Shenouda visiting Mt. Athos would not accomplish anything. Not to mention that the Head of the Coptic Church should not be seen begging from monks with disillusion.
The Byzantine policies have been harmful, not only to the reconciliation of the Church of God, but also to their own populations in the given Islamic Lands. Moreover, they, as a Christian Denomination, are being systematically removed from the Middle East, eg, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and even Egypt.
Reality: Ecumenical Patriarch presides over 5000 people, yet because of heavy financial backing from US/Greek expatriots, he is able to still have a hold in Turkey--Constantinople.
Reality: The Ecumenical Patriarch is in full rivalry with the Patriarch of Athens and the Patriarch of Moscow.
Reality: The Byzantine Patriarch of Alexandria (the parallel to Pope Shenouda and bearing the same title) presides over several thousand in Egypt (I'm being generous--it's more like a couple of thousand). The churches that were taken from us over the centuries are being returned one at a time in one manner or the other. The Byzantine Patriarchate in Egypt exists only by money from ex-patriots.
The Byzantines do not show any major push for reconciliation because of the following points, all of which are politically motivated:
1. admission of murder
2. imperial aspiration
3. dysfunction in their own Family of churches
4. too much money from expatriots with their own agendas.
I don't want to be a Greek, but that is what they are demanding.
I don't want to be a Latin, but that is what the Latin Church wants.
Unity is not happening, solely from the Byzantine refusal to retreat from a folly point.
Being very clear: The Oriental Orthodox are unanimous about reconciliation. They have made every overture.
The ball is in the court of the Byzantine Empire (oops, I meant the Byzantine Family).
The Imperial = the Byzantine Church through those eras.
The Church gave sanction and participated in these genocides. A given general also had a dual role as a bishop. Some of the usurper Patriarchs carried out both roles. In other situations they called on the Imperial Army to impose their mandates on the Orientals.
The Ecumenical Patriarch is considered the caretaker for the Emperor.
The EO carries the responsibility and hope of crowning an Emperor for the resurgence of the Byzantine Empire.
The real issue relies upon them having to admit they committed murder and genocide.
The other aspect is of Imperial aspirations for the Byzantine Family.
The Orientals have taken on a brotherly tone, unanimously, among all the different traditions within this Family. This spirit is lead by His Holiness Pope Shenouda--himself.
The tone from the Byzantines (not all, but the leading factions) has been, dare I say the words: unfriendly and arrogant.
And as if after Chalcedon, the non-chalcedonians didn't harm or masacre anyone? Lets not play the poor-me role. Yes, the chalcedonians massacred way more people than the non-chalcedonians (due to being backed up by the Byzantine Roman empire)but we still did it...perhaps in Syria and Asia Minor more than in Egypt...but even in Egypt the non chalcedonians would shut the churches of the chalcedonians and kill them. If it wasn't partially for the massacre of the chalcedonian Syriacs who later fled to the mountains of Lebanon, most likely today, the Maronite Catholic Christians would have remained Orthodox...but being massacred, they ran away into the mountains...centuries later, the French Crusaders show up and offer them protection if they were to pledge allegience to Rome. At the same time, we cannot forget the Byzantine role in the Islamization of Egypt.
To try to draw a moral equivalence with the Chalcedonians is a techniques used by muslims of Egypt to try to prove that atrocities are on both side and use it as a cover up for their crimes. We thank God who has sent the muslims to save us from the evil of the Chalcedonians. As vicious as the Muslims were and still are, they are nothing compared to Leo of Rome who appealed to Marcian and Pulcahria to annihilate the Copts, Justin Emperor, Justinian, Hercules, and all the rest of the "god-loving" Chalcedonian figures.
The next thing is to claim that we have persecuted the Chalcedonians and their Emperors and ask them for their forgiveness. ;D
Also, back then, there was no Latin or Greek branch of Chalcedonianism...there was the Greek church (Constantinople) and Church of Rome (Latin) which was still (chalcedonian) orthodox. Yes, you are partially right that they chose Rome due to power, however, history still tells us that they were pushed up into the mountains of Lebanon and fled from Syria (where Mar Maroun originally was from) due to non-chalcedonian persecution (again minimalistic in comparison to the byzantine persecutions...but the fact remains that 500 monks of the Syriac chalcedonian side were massacred and thus the rest of the monastics and the faithful fled to the mountains. Btw, the Maronite church is still Syriac in its Rite and character.
As for the Arabs, I too Dzheremi have read in many places that the Copts welcomed the Arabs with open arms as a lesser of the 2 evils in comparison to the Byzantines...Islam was considered a heretic ofshoot of Christianity at that time.
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=11593.msg140265#msg140265 date=1309116096] No, we NEVER harmed anyone. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Good. AT least you got this one right. No. You are wrong again. No evidence to what you say. The Chalcedonians, specially in Egypt, killed millions and emptied the land from its inhabitants. Again, no evidence to your claim. Wrong. The Maronite were Chalcedonians who choose the Latin branch of the Chalcedonian family because they were more powerful. At no point of time, whether in Egypt, Syria, Palestine or Asia Minor did any atrocities happen against the Chalcedonians.
To try to draw a moral equivalence with the Chalcedonians is a techniques used by muslims of Egypt to try to prove that atrocities are on both side and use it as a cover up for their crimes. We thank God who has sent the muslims to save us from the evil of the Chalcedonians. As vicious as the Muslims were and still are, they are nothing compared to Leo of Rome who appealed to Marcian and Pulcahria to annihilate the Copts, Justin Emperor, Justinian, Hercules, and all the rest of the "god-loving" Chalcedonian figures.
The next thing is to claim that we have persecuted the Chalcedonians and their Emperors and ask them for their forgiveness. ;D
PK
Second, I really feel that each church on the EO side is hesitant to reach out to us, afraid that this could cause a schism between them and their own sister churches. This at least appears to be the situation with the Coptic and Russian churches. If you read the document produced by the Russian Orthodox Synod with regards to unity with the OO, you would guess that union was on the horizon (a few years away at most) but I feel it never happened as other EO churches never showed much interest in the issue.
Unfortunately though, union just isn't realistic with them due to their view of our church. I searched really hard for the website which has the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Egypt, Theodoros, calling the Coptic Church Monophysite in an interview with someone, who I believe is of the Greek Church in Alexandria. Also, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, Theophilos, accused the Coptic Church of treason and shows disrespect to the Secretary of the Coptic Synod, H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy, by refusing him the opportunity to speak. Pope Shenouda demanded an apology and none was given. This resulted in Pope Shenouda removing the Coptic Church from the Middle Eastern Council of Churches.
With things becoming more and more tense between our churches, I think it's just not the right time for unity...
Unfortunately though, union just isn't realistic with them due to their view of our church. I searched really hard for the website which has the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Egypt, Theodoros, calling the Coptic Church Monophysite in an interview with someone, who I believe is of the Greek Church in Alexandria.
Here is the article: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/740/profile.htm
There was, however, an apology issued by His Beatitude for this. More information can be found here: http://www.theholysynod.copticpope.org/eng_explan.htm
They call Patriarch Theodoros: HH, at this link.
"The Copts adhere to the monophysite doctrine, that is they believe in one nature in the person of Christ and that nature is divine," the Greek Orthodox Patriarch elaborates. "We believe that Christ is both human and divine."
Thats a whole lot of information to be translated incorrectly. I can understand how the word monophysite can be translated wrong, but how do you explain "that is they believe in one nature in the person of Christ and that nature is divine"...?
PK
As for the Arabs, I too Dzheremi have read in many places that the Copts welcomed the Arabs with open arms as a lesser of the 2 evils in comparison to the Byzantines...Islam was considered a heretic ofshoot of Christianity at that time.
Sorry, Timothy, I should have been more clear in my original statement. I have read about that once commonly-held opinion, but only in relation to modern refutations of that opinion. Why it is refused is important to understand. From what I can gather (from Grypeou et. al., available via Google books), this opinion was based on a statement to that effect by Michael the Syrian (d. 1199), who was obviously not contemporaneous with the events he is interpreting, his interpretations of which are contradictory by other sources, including Syriac and Coptic sources written closer to the actual Islamic conquest of Egypt, such as the "History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria", the compilation began by Severus Ibn al-Muqaffa' (d. 987), which is the main source for Coptic views of the Islamic conquest and early years of Islamic rule in Egypt (and is as such the main non-Syrian literature on early Islam from a non-Chalcedonian point of view).
I highly recommend that you read the relevant chapter by Harald Suermann in Grypeou et. al., available via Google books at the following link: The encounter of Eastern Christianity with early Islam (Go to "Copts and Islam of the Seventh Century", p. 95)
It seems hard to refute the final analysis that the Arabs were NOT seen as liberators, given that the weight of Syriac and Coptic historical writings are against that idea, at best presenting a mixed relationship in which the Christians cannot be seen to have truly benefited. (This was also true with Islam and the Byzantines, as you can see elsewhere in the same collection of essays, in the chapter on Patriarch Sophronius and the Caliph 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, to whom the Patriarch surrendered Jerusalem.)
Here is what H.B. actually wrote: http://www.theholysynod.copticpope.org/appendix1.htm
(it was under appendix 1)
I also don't believe that it was fully due to translation issues. You can tell the apology is still reserved by the language, but it's definitely a start.
Not that I want to get involved in this argument at all, but I feel compelled to mention that none of the scholarly sources I've ever read support this idea that the non-Chalcedonians greeted the Arabs as liberators from Byzantine rule (see for instance, Griffith 1994 or Suermann's chapter in Grypeou et. al. 2006, which goes into detail to dispel this once-popular myth). I'm kind of shocked to see it surface here, even in a polemical discussion. Is this a common sentiment among the Copts these days?
This myth was never popular among the Copts nor does it have any trace in this topic. Copts did not greet the arab invasion with cheers nor did they regard arabs as their liberators. Arabs committed many massacres upon their invasion of Egypt. But the egyptians also did not side with the Chalcedonian occupation.
You missed the point which is as follows:
The atrocities committed by the Arabs are nothing compared to the 190 years of slaughter and mutilation by the Chalcedonian between Chalcedon and the Arab invasion of Egypt, Syria and Palestine. The massacres inistigated by Leo, Anatolios, Maximos of Constantinople and ordered and masterminded by Marcian, Pulcharia, Justin, Justinian, Hercules and the rest of emperors /Chalcedonian saints against the us, Orthodox, are beyond any holocoast you might have heard of, including arabic ones. We certainly should blame them for the massacres they committed against us, specially as they have fully embraced these massacres by canonizing the mass murderers such as Leo, Marcian, Pulcharia, Justin, Justinian as saints. Even John of Damascus had a hand in persecution of the Orthodox in Syria as he was highly regarded in the court of the Khalif. The Lord Christ has not exonerated the Jews from the blood of the prophets who their fathers killed but told them that every blood will be asked from them.
Should the Chalcedonians distance themselves from these butchers, then you have a point. But they embrace them fully, declare that these are their fathers, and are in one organic union with them. Very wise approach. They are to be commended for their wisdom. So it is all personal then. I do not understand the decision. The church should have never been part of this council in the first place due to dogmatic reasons. Pulling out in an instant, after decades of involvement and mutual kisses and hugs between the church leaders, because of a personal issue shows how much time is spent in deciding on ecumenical affairs. This is something to be ashamed of. True. We sold out many years ago and the Chalcedonians appear to the ones holding fast to their heritage. Admission of murder and massacres was never demanded as a condition of unity by us. In fact, the very holy Pope Shenouda has repeatedly dodged the question about the status of the millions of martyrs who died in the two centuries of Chalcedonian occupation and whether they died as a result of misunderstanding or to keep the faith.
I also do not believe the EO have political imperial ambitions, although the presence of an Emperor is an integral part of their ecclesiology.
The expatriot money is an issue in terms on who gets jurisdiction over the North American and European jurisdictions, where all the money is. There is a lot of money involved and both sides are not willing to give up a penny of their current income. Would the Coptic church surrender Canada for example, which features very rich congregations? The problem is theological / ecclesiological in nature that will not be solved by an invitation for forgiveness.
The problem is that in signing the unity declaration with the Chalcedonians, stating that they have been always Orthodox and it was all a misunderstanding, the hierarchs implied that the millions of martyrs and confessors of the Chalcedonian persecution died because of a misunderstanding or because of their malicious will to divide the Church, thus stripping them of their sainthood. The martyrs died for the Orthodox faith and for Orthodox understanding of the nature of Christ. In doing so, they preached the truth by their blood, rejecting the two natures as defined in Chalcedon. The Chalcedonian faith never changed regarding the nature of Christ since accepting the Nestorian Tome of Leo as the pillar of their Christology.
Either the current hierarchs are right or the Dioscoros and Severus and Samuel the Confessor were correct. Both cannot be correct in the same time while they contradict each other.
There is a significant amount of misinformation in this thread. Both regarding the the Oriental church and the EO church. As a student of this particular era, and more specifically, of this council and its fallout, I recommend anyone seeking enlightenment on this particular issue explore the following, not-so-difficult to read books:
http://www.amazon.com/Council-Chalcedon-Liverpool-University-Press/dp/1846311004/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1309398190&sr=8-3
http://www.amazon.com/Council-Chalcedon-Re-Examined-V-Samuel/dp/1401016448/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1309398190&sr=8-13
The first being a Chalcedonian-account and the second being a non-Chalcedonian account. These two are probably the top publications regarding the issue if Chalcedon, and the issues of nature and wills that have formed as a result of that. They are also excellent sources regarding the political situation at the time, and the results over the next few centuries.
In the interim - here is an excellent paper by the Late Father John Romanides, an EO scholar with a very unbiased view of the events. He was heavily involved in the talks that ceased in the early 90s. You can also see OO and EO comments from leading bishops below.
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.08.en.st._cyrils_one_physis_or_hypostasis_of_god_the_log.htm
----------
I would like to leave you all with one important message as I only registered to post these links. On any topic one seriously wishes to discuss, you cannot engage in a forum style environment of discussion without doing a significant amount of research on your own. You will too easily be led astray by people simply quoting names of the era (Marcian, Theodosius, John, Dioscorus, etc..) or specific terminology (Hypostasis, Ouasia, etc..)
Also, EO and OO brothers alike, - we are not latins. We do not crave order when it comes to such things as "uniforms". What makes us strong as orthodox is our ability to exist with WIDELY different cultural and traditional practices within our orthodox faith. It is important that we, Russians, Ethiopians, Greeks, Slavs, Armenians, Egyptians, Syrians, Indians etc... continue to remain orthodox even though our liturgies and practices vary significantly and seem alien to one-another.
Thank you and I hope you find the links useful.
http://stores.lulu.com/orthodoxlibrary
There is also a 20% discount period which ends today. There is a discount code...
SUNSHINEUK305 for UK purchases.
SUMMERBOOK11 for US purchases.
Father Peter Farrington