[quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157932#msg157932 date=1342807998] Of course not. But it also wasn't that if it isn't done by a priest in the normal way, it was automatically invalid and needs to be repeated.
Any sacrament performed under normal conditions by an illegal priest is invalid.
This is well supported by the Church canons and the writings of the fathers.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157934#msg157934 date=1342808785] [quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157932#msg157932 date=1342807998] Of course not. But it also wasn't that if it isn't done by a priest in the normal way, it was automatically invalid and needs to be repeated.
Any sacrament performed under normal conditions by an illegal priest is invalid.
This is well supported by the Church canons and the writings of the fathers.
Is this so? Weren't bishops ordained by the meletians accepted as such once the schism was healed, without reordination? It seems very many schisms have been healed without rebaptism or reordination. What canons and writings of the fathers support this? I've seen writings saying that specific heretical groups are considered unbaptised... but not all. At least except from a few very early fathers whose opinion did not come to be the general consensus. I wish I had time now to research it. But if you want change my impression, you'll have to show me specific canons and writings, and not a few, not just say they exist.
[quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157936#msg157936 date=1342809996] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157934#msg157934 date=1342808785] [quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157932#msg157932 date=1342807998] Of course not. But it also wasn't that if it isn't done by a priest in the normal way, it was automatically invalid and needs to be repeated.
Any sacrament performed under normal conditions by an illegal priest is invalid.
This is well supported by the Church canons and the writings of the fathers.
Is this so? Weren't bishops ordained by the meletians accepted as such once the schism was healed, without reordination? It seems very many schisms have been healed without rebaptism or reordination. What canons and writings of the fathers support this? I've seen writings saying that specific heretical groups are considered unbaptised... but not all. At least except from a few very early fathers whose opinion did not come to be the general consensus. I wish I had time now to research it. But if you want change my impression, you'll have to show me specific canons and writings, and not a few, not just say they exist.
The example you cited is not a good one as the schism had nothing to with faith but jurisdiction.
I am stating a fact that any sacrament performed by a heretic is invalid and that this fact is supported by the writings of the fathers and the Church canons.
If you disagree, then you have to explain why with examples either from the canons, history or the fathers.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157939#msg157939 date=1342811134] [quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157936#msg157936 date=1342809996] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157934#msg157934 date=1342808785] [quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157932#msg157932 date=1342807998] Of course not. But it also wasn't that if it isn't done by a priest in the normal way, it was automatically invalid and needs to be repeated.
Any sacrament performed under normal conditions by an illegal priest is invalid.
This is well supported by the Church canons and the writings of the fathers.
Is this so? Weren't bishops ordained by the meletians accepted as such once the schism was healed, without reordination? It seems very many schisms have been healed without rebaptism or reordination. What canons and writings of the fathers support this? I've seen writings saying that specific heretical groups are considered unbaptised... but not all. At least except from a few very early fathers whose opinion did not come to be the general consensus. I wish I had time now to research it. But if you want change my impression, you'll have to show me specific canons and writings, and not a few, not just say they exist.
The example you cited is not a good one as the schism had nothing to with faith but jurisdiction.
I am stating a fact that any sacrament performed by a heretic is invalid and that this fact is supported by the writings of the fathers and the Church canons.
If you disagree, then you have to explain why with examples either from the canons, history or the fathers.
Ah, you said any illegal priest, which is different than a heretical priest. It's important to know we're talking about the same things. A schismatic is certainly an illegal priest as well. If we are going to restrict ourselves to heretical priest, then it's best to know what exactly we mean by this. You contend that the Eastern Orthodox are heretics, and not just schismatics? And you are arguing that all heretics can confer no Sacraments?
That is, you are arguing that the Eastern Orthodox have no valid sacraments, and are in effect unbaptised, and without priesthood or eucharist? it's important to know what position we are discussion before arguing past each other :) Is this a fair assessment of your position, and if not, what have I misunderstood in your stance?
[quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157940#msg157940 date=1342812550] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157939#msg157939 date=1342811134] [quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157936#msg157936 date=1342809996] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157934#msg157934 date=1342808785] [quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157932#msg157932 date=1342807998] Of course not. But it also wasn't that if it isn't done by a priest in the normal way, it was automatically invalid and needs to be repeated.
Any sacrament performed under normal conditions by an illegal priest is invalid.
This is well supported by the Church canons and the writings of the fathers.
Is this so? Weren't bishops ordained by the meletians accepted as such once the schism was healed, without reordination? It seems very many schisms have been healed without rebaptism or reordination. What canons and writings of the fathers support this? I've seen writings saying that specific heretical groups are considered unbaptised... but not all. At least except from a few very early fathers whose opinion did not come to be the general consensus. I wish I had time now to research it. But if you want change my impression, you'll have to show me specific canons and writings, and not a few, not just say they exist.
The example you cited is not a good one as the schism had nothing to with faith but jurisdiction.
I am stating a fact that any sacrament performed by a heretic is invalid and that this fact is supported by the writings of the fathers and the Church canons.
If you disagree, then you have to explain why with examples either from the canons, history or the fathers.
Ah, you said any illegal priest, which is different than a heretical priest. It's important to know we're talking about the same things. A schismatic is certainly an illegal priest as well. If we are going to restrict ourselves to heretical priest, then it's best to know what exactly we mean by this. You contend that the Eastern Orthodox are heretics, and not just schismatics? And you are arguing that all heretics can confer no Sacraments?
That is, you are arguing that the Eastern Orthodox have no valid sacraments, and are in effect unbaptised, and without priesthood or eucharist? it's important to know what position we are discussion before arguing past each other :) Is this a fair assessment of your position, and if not, what have I misunderstood in your stance?
You probably need to read my posts again to get a fair assessment of what I was talking about.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157941#msg157941 date=1342813428] [quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157940#msg157940 date=1342812550] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157939#msg157939 date=1342811134] [quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157936#msg157936 date=1342809996] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157934#msg157934 date=1342808785] [quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157932#msg157932 date=1342807998] Of course not. But it also wasn't that if it isn't done by a priest in the normal way, it was automatically invalid and needs to be repeated.
Any sacrament performed under normal conditions by an illegal priest is invalid.
This is well supported by the Church canons and the writings of the fathers.
Is this so? Weren't bishops ordained by the meletians accepted as such once the schism was healed, without reordination? It seems very many schisms have been healed without rebaptism or reordination. What canons and writings of the fathers support this? I've seen writings saying that specific heretical groups are considered unbaptised... but not all. At least except from a few very early fathers whose opinion did not come to be the general consensus. I wish I had time now to research it. But if you want change my impression, you'll have to show me specific canons and writings, and not a few, not just say they exist.
The example you cited is not a good one as the schism had nothing to with faith but jurisdiction.
I am stating a fact that any sacrament performed by a heretic is invalid and that this fact is supported by the writings of the fathers and the Church canons.
If you disagree, then you have to explain why with examples either from the canons, history or the fathers.
Ah, you said any illegal priest, which is different than a heretical priest. It's important to know we're talking about the same things. A schismatic is certainly an illegal priest as well. If we are going to restrict ourselves to heretical priest, then it's best to know what exactly we mean by this. You contend that the Eastern Orthodox are heretics, and not just schismatics? And you are arguing that all heretics can confer no Sacraments?
That is, you are arguing that the Eastern Orthodox have no valid sacraments, and are in effect unbaptised, and without priesthood or eucharist? it's important to know what position we are discussion before arguing past each other :) Is this a fair assessment of your position, and if not, what have I misunderstood in your stance?
You probably need to read my posts again to get a fair assessment of what I was talking about.
This thread has gone all over the place. That's part of why it's so easy to get on different pages and fail to talk to each other.
From things you've said it seems like you've mentioned repeatedly that the EO have a different faith than us. By that do you mean that they are heretics? Or what definition are you going by for different faith, and heretic?
Even the Arians were not "rebaptized" or "reordained." All they had to do was make a confession of the faith (i.e. recite the Nicene Creed) to be members of the Orthodox Church. The very obvious case in Church history is that of the Emperor Constantine, who was baptized at his death-bed by the Arian bishop, Eusebius, but this did not hinder him from being considered a saint in the Orthodox churches.
No matter what you argue here, the case still is what we affirm in the Creed: "we believe in ONE baptism for the remission of sins." The only condition for baptism is that one is baptized with water three times in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There are no other requirements - and anyone can perform a baptism, whether a bishop, priest, deacon, deaconess, layman, laywoman, or heretic.
To say that a person who has been baptized in a different denomination or by heretics needs to be rebaptized to join the Orthodox church is itself another heresy: the heresy of Donatism.
Even the Arians were not "rebaptized" or "reordained." All they had to do was make a confession of the faith (i.e. recite the Nicene Creed) to be members of the Orthodox Church.
Where is your reference?
The very obvious case in Church history is that of the Emperor Constantine, who was baptized at his death-bed by the Arian bishop, Eusebius, but this did not hinder him from being considered a saint in the Orthodox churches.
I know this is going to upset a lot of people ...
Neither Constantine nor Eusabius are saints in the OO Church. Both are heretics; the former was baptized by an Arian, the latter insisted on following Arianism. This is well documented.
Unfortunately, Constantine crept into the hymns of the Coptic Church recently in the 20th century. There is no evidence whatsoever, prior to this period, that he was a celebrated saint in the Church.
There are no other requirements - and anyone can perform a baptism, whether a bishop, priest, deacon, deaconess, layman, laywoman, or heretic.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157949#msg157949 date=1342846457] Even the Arians were not "rebaptized" or "reordained." All they had to do was make a confession of the faith (i.e. recite the Nicene Creed) to be members of the Orthodox Church.
Where is your reference?
The very obvious case in Church history is that of the Emperor Constantine, who was baptized at his death-bed by the Arian bishop, Eusebius, but this did not hinder him from being considered a saint in the Orthodox churches.
I know this is going to upset a lot of people ...
Neither Constantine nor Eusabius are saints in the OO Church. Both are heretics; the former was baptized by an Arian, the latter insisted on following Arianism. This is well documented.
Unfortunately, Constantine crept into the hymns of the Coptic Church recently in the 20th century. There is no evidence whatsoever, prior to this period, that he was a celebrated saint in the Church.
There are no other requirements - and anyone can perform a baptism, whether a bishop, priest, deacon, deaconess, layman, laywoman, or heretic.
Not according to the Church of Alexandria.
To say that a person who has been baptized in a different denomination or by heretics needs to be rebaptized to join the Orthodox church is itself another heresy
There is no rebaptism because the heretic baptism is invalid.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157950#msg157950 date=1342847186] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157949#msg157949 date=1342846457] Even the Arians were not "rebaptized" or "reordained." All they had to do was make a confession of the faith (i.e. recite the Nicene Creed) to be members of the Orthodox Church.
Where is your reference? Council of Constantinople Canon 7 "Those heretics who come over to Orthodoxy and to the society of those who are saved we receive according to the prescribed rites and customs: Arians, Macedonians, Novatianists who call themselves "pure and better", Quatrodecimans or Tetradites as well as Apollinarians. We receive them on condition that they present a written document and that they anathemize every heresy which is not in accord with the thinking of the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God, and then they should be marked with a seal, that is, anointed with chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. And as they are marked with the seal, we say "seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. As for the Eunomians who are baptized with only one single immersion, Montanists here called Phyrgians, Sabellians, who teach the doctrine of "Father-Son" and commit other abominable things, and all other heresies - for there are many of them especially among the people coming from the country of the Galatians - all those among them that want to come over to Orthodoxy we receive as pagans: the first day, we make them Christians, the second catechumens, then the third day we exorcize them by blowing three times on their faces and ears; then we teach them and we make them come to the church for a long time to hear the scriptures. After that, we baptize them." Source, "The church of the ancient councils : the disciplinary work of the first four ecumenical councils". Here is another source from Papal Encyclicals Online.
Neither Constantine nor Eusabius are saints in the OO Church. Both are heretics; the former was baptized by an Arian, the latter insisted on following Arianism. This is well documented.
So you're saying the Coptic Orthodox Commemoration of the Saints, sung during the Midnight Psalmody that specifically includes King Constantine and his mother, is wrong? Either he is a saint in the Coptic Church or the Coptic Church includes heretics in the diptychs. Which one is it?
Unfortunately, Constantine crept into the hymns of the Coptic Church recently in the 20th century. There is no evidence whatsoever, prior to this period, that he was a celebrated saint in the Church.
I see you're still going back to the "rites-and-anything-ancient-are-static,-absolute,-and-right-unconditionally-but-everything-newer-than-some-arbitrary-undefined-date-is-a-fabrication" theory. This argument is flawed and doesn't even deserve a response.
To say that a person who has been baptized in a different denomination or by heretics needs to be rebaptized to join the Orthodox church is itself another heresy
There is no rebaptism because the heretic baptism is invalid.
I sincerely hope you stop advocating claims and teachings contrary to our ecumenical councils. You have not given any source to show how your understanding of the Coptic Orthodox rites and customs is or isn't inline with all the evidence against you. You are the only one claiming these things without any references.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157949#msg157949 date=1342846457] I know this is going to upset a lot of people ...
Neither Constantine nor Eusabius are saints in the OO Church. Both are heretics; the former was baptized by an Arian, the latter insisted on following Arianism. This is well documented.
Unfortunately, Constantine crept into the hymns of the Coptic Church recently in the 20th century. There is no evidence whatsoever, prior to this period, that he was a celebrated saint in the Church.
On this day, St. Bishoy, whose memorial is honorable, the star of the desert, departed. He was born in a town called Shansa in Egypt, and he had six brothers. His mother saw an angel in a vision saying to her, "The Lord says to you, give Me one of your children to serve Me." She answered, "Lord, take whoever you want." The angel took the hand of Anba Bishoy, who was thin and his body was frail. His mother told the angel, "My Lord, take one who is strong to serve the Lord." "This is whom the Lord has chosen," answered the Angel.
Later on, St. Bishoy went to the wilderness of Shiheet and became a monk by the hand of Anba Bemwah (Bamouyah), who also ordained St. John "Yehness" the Short a monk. St. Bishoy struggled in much asceticism and many worships that made him worthy to see the Lord Christ.
Emperor Constantine appeared to him in a vision, saying, "Had I known how great is the honor of monks, I would have abandoned my kingdom and became a monk." St. Bishoy told him, "You have banished the heathen worship and exalted Christianity, and has not Christ given you anything?" Emperor Constantine answered him, [glow=red,2,300]"The Lord has given me many gifts[/glow], but none of them is like the honor of the monks."
During his days, an ascetic old man appeared in the mountain of Ansena, who was reputed for his righteousness and to whom many people gathered. But he deviated from the true faith and the devil lead him astray. He taught that there is no Holy Spirit, and many were deceived by his sayings. Anba Bishoy heard about him, and he went to him and he had with him a weaved basket with three ears. When he visited the old man and his followers, they asked him about the reason for making three ears for the basket. He answered, "I have a Trinity, and everything I do, is like the Trinity." They said to him, "Then, Is there a thing called the Holy Spirit?" Then he started to explain to them from the Holy Scriptures, from the Old and New Testaments. He indicated to them that the Holy Spirit is One of the three Persons of the Trinity. He convinced them, and they returned to the true faith. Then he returned to his monastery in the wilderness of Scete (Shiheet). When the barbarians invaded the wilderness, he left it and dwelt on Mount Ansena, where he departed. After the time of persecution had ended, they brought his body with the body of St. Paul of Tamouh to his monastery in the wilderness of Shiheet.
There are no other requirements - and anyone can perform a baptism, whether a bishop, priest, deacon, deaconess, layman, laywoman, or heretic.
Not according to the OO Church.
Rufinus and Sozomen both give accounts of Pope Athanasius baptising as a layperson. "While playing religious ceremonies at the shore, Athanasius baptizes his comrades at Alexandria. The bishop, Alexander, is said to have taken counsel with his clergy, and then having found that the proper form had been used, to have decided that the boys were validly baptized." The same story is mentioned in the Coptic Synaxarium on Bashans 7 with no mentioning of baptism. The Synaxarium story follows the historian Socrates account.
Regarding Lay baptism, Tertullian, around 200 AD, in De Baptism 17 says only a bishop has the right of giving baptism and whomever he designates but continues to say that it is lawful for the laity also to bestow it in cases of necessity. The only condition is the laity must have already received the gift of baptism to give the gift of baptism. He excludes women.
Apparently, Nicephorus of Constantinople, in the ninth century had 2 canons that allowed lay baptism. There is a Greek confession of faith, in 1662, allows any Christian man or woman to baptize in emergency.
The issue of lay baptism is controversial. It is generally allowed by some churches and not allowed by other churches. The same is true about the ancient fathers regarding heretical baptism: some allowed it, some did not. But there is no universal rule that heretical baptism cannot be accepted ever.
So you're saying the Coptic Orthodox Commemoration of the Saints, sung during the Midnight Psalmody that specifically includes King Constantine and his mother, is wrong? Either he is a saint in the Coptic Church or the Coptic Church includes heretics in the diptychs. Which one is it?
It is both. He is a heretic and unfortunately his addition is a recent development. None of the manuscripts have him. We do not have any church in his name, no clergy is named after him.
His addition to the midnight praises in the 20th century is a mistake.
Imikhail this is a very interesting point that you are saying about Canon 7 of Constantinople, can you provide a reference from the Church (ie not even just 'Coptic') or some form of church authority as to the lack of reliability in the aforementioned canon?
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=13480.msg157961#msg157961 date=1342896112] I can see a very lively debate happening! :D.
Imikhail this is a very interesting point that you are saying about Canon 7 of Constantinople, can you provide a reference from the Church (ie not even just 'Coptic') or some form of church authority as to the lack of reliability in the aforementioned canon?
thanks!
Pray for me!
This is the teaching of our Church in the seminaries and in the books on Canons.
"The council of Constantinople enacted four disciplinary canons: against the Arian heresy and its sects (can. 1), on limiting the power of bishops within fixed boundaries (can. 2), on ranking the see of Constantinople second to Rome in honour and dignity (can. 3), on the condemnation of Maximus and his followers (can. 4). Canons 2-4 were intended to put a stop to aggrandisement on the part of the see of Alexandria. The two following canons, 5 and 6, were framed at the synod which met in Constantinople in 382. The 7th canon is an extract from a letter which the church of Constantinople sent to Martyrius of Antioch."
So you're saying the Coptic Orthodox Commemoration of the Saints, sung during the Midnight Psalmody that specifically includes King Constantine and his mother, is wrong? Either he is a saint in the Coptic Church or the Coptic Church includes heretics in the diptychs. Which one is it?
It is both. He is a heretic and unfortunately his addition is a recent development. None of the manuscripts have him. We do not have any church in his name, no clergy is named after him.
His addition to the midnight praises in the 20th century is a mistake.
can you post a manuscript that has the magma3 without him?
[quote author=Daniel Ibrahim link=topic=13480.msg157918#msg157918 date=1342795641] Fr Peter,
While your experiences with the EO may be positive, sadly it is not always the case. Archbishop Stylianos, the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Australia, firmly upholds that we are 'heretics' to this day. When HH Pope Shenouda visited Australia, Archbishop Stylianos openly warned all Greek Orthodox clergy and laity, that he would excommunicate them if they met with HH. Bishop Suriel has attempted many times to have dialogue with Archbishop Stylianos, each time having the door slammed in his face. A priest in our diocese was studying at the Greek Orthodox theological college in Sydney. Archbishop Stylianos was teaching one of the classes, and openly ridiculed our priest in front of the whole class for being a 'heretic'. I visited St Catherine's monastery at Mt Sinai, and was refused entrance to see the body of St Catherine because I was not 'orthodox'. I've also visited the Holy city of Jerusalem. The Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem treats all the Oriental Orthodox churches as heretics. Fights regularly break out between the EO Greeks and the OO Armenians because they view us as heretics. In the church where the Virgin St Mary's tomb remains, the EO pray at different times to the OO because they do not want to pray with 'heretics'. I can go on. Unfortunately, there are a lot of EO clergy and laity who still believe us to be heretics. I pray that one day the schisms of the church may cease. But as far as i'm concerned, we are still a long way off.
Keep me in your prayers,
Daniel Some of the behavior you described is nothing short of disgusting. It's one thing to believe we are not Orthodox, but an Archbishop openly mocking and insulting a Cleric from another tradition, and clergymen picking fights at the site of the Lord's Nativity is a vile and repulsive desecration of God's name.
"The council of Constantinople enacted four disciplinary canons: against the Arian heresy and its sects (can. 1), on limiting the power of bishops within fixed boundaries (can. 2), on ranking the see of Constantinople second to Rome in honour and dignity (can. 3), on the condemnation of Maximus and his followers (can. 4). Canons 2-4 were intended to put a stop to aggrandisement on the part of the see of Alexandria. The two following canons, 5 and 6, were framed at the synod which met in Constantinople in 382. The 7th canon is an extract from a letter which the church of Constantinople sent to Martyrius of Antioch."
Fake Prophecy and Polluted Sacraments: Ecclesiastical and Imperial Reactions to Montanism P.301
All three references you gave have serious problems. Here is a summary of their argument: 1. All references acknowledge that the earliest Greek manuscripts have all 7 canons of Constantinople but the Latin lists only have 4 and some have 6. (Beveridge Synodica) 2. Canon 7 was not mentioned by any historian (Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret). 3. The language of Canon 7 of Constantinople I is not in the normal form of canons. (Beveridge, Hefele) 4. A manuscript 80 years later to a Bishop Martyrius of Antioch (459-470) contains the same language of Canon 7 (Fake prophets, Hefele)
Rebuttal 1. Not all lists have all canons. Assuming lists with more canons are counterfit does not equate to judicial evidence. We know the same problem occurred with the Apostolic Canons. The Coptic version has all 85 canons, most Greek lists also have 85 and some Latin lists only have 50. Does that mean lists with 85 canons have counterfit canons? No. The Scripture canon is another example. There are lists that have all Canonical books, some only the Septugaint, some only the Mesoretic, some with apocryphal texts. Does that mean the Septugiant is a fake and the Mesoretic is authentic? No. Lists in themselves do not say much. It only gives a snapshot of one time period in one city with one audience. If one writer gives 85 canons, it is because they believed all 85 are authentic and that is what they want their audience to understand. Another write may acknowledge 85 canons but feel only 50 apply to an audience. There are many reasons why one list has X number of canons and another doesn't. It is sufficient to say that the "oldest" (and I don't believe oldest means most authentic) has all 7 canons. To jump to the conclusion that 4 must be authentic, 6 possibly authentic and 7 counterfit, goes beyone any logical evidenciary analysis. Without any additional evidence, the conclusion Beveridge, Hefele and others accept as logical falls short.
2. Historians are not ecclesiological scholars. Historians are not theologians. Historians (especially Late Antiquity historians) are completely biased. We know nearly all early church historians claim opposing factions were mob leaders (Athanasius, Theophilus, Dioscorus, Cyril, etc). Just look at the quote you gave us. "Canons 2-4 were intended to put a stop to aggrandisement on the part of the see of Alexandria." I fail to see how these canons have anything particular to the see of Alexandria. They are using Alexandria as an example along with Antioch, Asia, Pontus, and Thrace. One can argue Canon 3 was an attack against Alexandria, it requires a bit of historical bias. The canon does not specifically speak of Alexandria. Historians are not theologians.
3. This is the most ridiuclous claim of them all. It again assumes that canons must have a certain verbiage in order to be authentic. The same argument is used by claims against St Paul's authorship of Hebrews. If we look at Fake Prophecies p. 301, you will see that the council of Laodicea (343) spoke against the Montanists. Canon 8 does not have the typical "let him be anathema" or "If someone does X, then this happens. If someone doesn't do X, then this happens." Canon 8 of Laodicea has a compassionate, patoral tone, not a legal, judgmental tone. Yet it is still considered a canon. So far no one has claimed this canon is counterfit. Similarly, the compassionate, pastoral tone is found in Canon 7 of Constantinople. Yet this canon (Canon 7 of Constantinople) is considered counterfit because it doesn't follow that legal, judicial canon tone.
4. This rebuttal is identical to #1. Not all lists will repeat verbatim. Just because we have a later list (or a letter in this case) that does repeat verbatim the language of Canon 7, it doesn't mean Canon 7 is a fake. The same argument is made by A. Migna in "The Vision of Theophilus". Migna argues that the vision of Theophilus must be a fake because it has events dated to the ninth century. Yet modern scholarly evidence, using technics and theories of Orality, shows that the core of a historical fact or story, transmitted orally, proceeds written manuscript evidence. Finding a written manuscript does not negate the oral tradition. Just because Beveridge, Hefele and others found a 5th century letter doesn't mean that Canon 7 is a later addition. The fact that earlier Greek manuscripts have all 7 canons negates this theory in itself.
5. No Orthodox Church has officially claimed Canon 7 of Constantinople is fake. This is different than other canons. Rome disagreed with Chalcedonian canon 27 (I think that's the number). Until an Apostolic Church officially approves or rejects a canon or council or a heresy, we cannot take it upon ourselves to make general assumptions of validity. You have not provided any official condmenation of Canon 7.
6. It's easy to supply evidence of Protestant theories. Orthodoxy operates differently. As long as there is more than enough unviersal belief that Canon 7 is authentic, then it is valid since all Orthodox churches already claimed the council is valid. The same holds for the Scripture canon. Plenty of fathers agreed on the canon and officially the Septugaint canon is accepted among all Orthodox churches.
Like mentioned before, this thread has gone all over the place. The fact remains Eastern Orthodox are not heretics. They do not need to be rebaptized. There is plenty of evidence to support this (both officially from the Coptic Church and unofficially from patristic writings).
No Orthodox Church has officially claimed Canon 7 of Constantinople is fake.
Reminkimi,
The Coptic Church has officially claimed Canon 7 of Constantinople is fake. You were just not informed but now you are. Where's your reference? An official document from the Coptic Church (not Protestant academia) has been requested a long time ago and has not been furnished yet.
You can rebuttal, analyze, philosophize, criticize, theorize, ....
Again, don't attack me with condescending comments. Stick to the argument and defend yourself.
The bottom line is that canon 7 is a forgery and we do not accept it. This is the teaching of the Coptic Church.
I already gave you plenty of references why Canon 7 is not a forgery. If you continue to claim Canon 7 is a forgery, then it makes it easy to say all of the Council of Constantinople is a forgery or at least not ecumenical and binding. Give any reference from any ancient or modern father that this is the teaching of the Coptic Church.
The OO never accepts heretical baptisms. All sacraments have to be done on the hands of a legal priest.
Now you are conflating claims to validate your false argument. No one ever said the Oriental Orthodox accepts heretical baptism. No one accepts heresy. However, the fathers have decided what to do with repentant sinners who were given the grace of baptism by heretical clergy. The majority believed that real baptism was only necessary on certain heresies and not others. Your second claim, "all sacraments have to be done on the hands of a legal priests", is too broad to discuss. Running the risk of being accused for polemics, we are arguing over what a legal priest is and Orthodox priests, whether Chalcedonian or not, are legitimate clergy even if they don't believe we are.
If anyone would like to listen to the Seminary lectures of our Coptic Church, on this point of Canon 7, please pm me.
Seminary lectures do not amount to official statements by the Holy Synod or patristic fathers. You'll have to find something more authoritative.
I've been away from the forum for some time, so I re-read this very important discussion. Of course, my hackles are raised by most innovative, progressive, ecumenical proposals to open-up and modernize any aspect of orthodox traditional thought and practice. Especially when this is the proposed solution to an admitted, or philosophically imagined deviation from the traditions of our Fathers. I appreciate imikhail's informed, zealous defense of the Coptic Church's faithfulness to most orthodox traditions of "our" (O'Dioscorus and McAthanasius) Holy Fathers. I wish. This is where the Irish faith went into the ditch. His several "evangelical" challengers seem to insist that all EO and OO have the same faith and baptism.
My experience does not confirm this presumption. When I felt that I had to find another traditional apostolic church community because the Catholic Church of my birth had abandoned its traditional beliefs and practices, I visited the various available major orthodox communities. This was at the time of the Great U.S. Antiochian Orthodox Evangelical Mission, etc.. The familiar, English speaking atmosphere was easiest for me to adapt to. I was accepted by an abbreviated anointing. A year or so later, I was sponsor/god father for a convert from a Baptist church. He also became Orthodox by a similar anointing. I attended this Antiochian parish and visited the various other EO churches for 8-10 years. During this time I began braving to visit a "heretical" Coptic Church. I liked it.
During my Antiochian life I learned that the U.S. hierarch of the Antiochian Archdiocese decided that it was more "evangelical" (and practical) to receive most converts by this anointing. Several thousands of "americans" became orthodox in this process, which is still "pitching" this modern (ancient) orthodoxy. Many of these new converts were encouraged to attend seminary to be ordained as orthodox priests. Protestant and Catholic clergy also became "orthodox" priests by various similar accommodations. I heard several discussions among devote "old country" Antiochian priests and laity that criticized this unorthodox initiation. But, Metropolitan P. forbid any other initiation (baptism). There was at least one incident where one of these "convert" priests was deposed because he obtained Orthodox Baptism to complete his conversion. It is my understanding that the majority of current U.S. Antiochian Orthodox priests "became Orthodox" by this anointing process. Of course, all of these "unbaptized" EO have the same EO credentials as all infant baptized "Greeks." They are not the same, and those who misrepresent them as such seem to have serious, unfounded ecumenical hopes and delusions. Maybe even those who profess precise, accredited analysis. Throw your goad away, Rem. Except perhaps in some of the Protestantized Coptic missions, I doubt that many Coptic Christians have been similarly deceived of their own Orthodox spiritual status. How do ancient canons relate to these new heretics? Continued progressive and open minded Coptic innovations, especially in gender and family theology and practice could easily put the Coptic Church in the same sinking condition. By the way, so called Antiochian Orthodox, are actually the Greek Orthodox Church of Syria, so these deviations are actually Greek Orthodox. How do you distinguish Greek from Greek? More garlic? wine?
I'll never understand God's blessing to lead me blindly to my re-baptism by the Coptic Church. Thank you, imikhail for explaining its value to us. Hopefully I'll be blessed to be able to complete the rest of my pilgrimage to God's Kingdom, through His always vigilant and faithful Holy Coptic Church. Please pray for me and for the Coptic Church.
So, the process for a Greek Orthodox to enter the Coptic Church should depend upon his Greek spiritual credentials. If properly baptized and chrismated as Orthodox, his Coptic initiation should be as his local Coptic bishop prescribes. I believe that imikhail advises that it should be by the blessing of Holy Chrismation. With the Holy Coptic Myron? That is first class of the highest order!
Hello everybody! Can anybody explain me what is Twelve Chapters of St. Cyrill of Alexandria? I tried to find this book on the internet but I didn't find. I saw the list of books which St. Cyrill wrote but I didn't find such a name. Can anybody explain me when it was written, concerning what and how is the full name of this book?
[quote author=Alexrus77 link=topic=13480.msg161207#msg161207 date=1353173253] Hello everybody! Can anybody explain me what is Twelve Chapters of St. Cyrill of Alexandria? I tried to find this book on the internet but I didn't find. I saw the list of books which St. Cyrill wrote but I didn't find such a name. Can anybody explain me when it was written, concerning what and how is the full name of this book? The "twelve chapters" of St. Cyril are the twelve anathemas contained in St. Cyril's third letter to the impious heretic Nestorius.
The letter, along with the twelve chapters/anathemas, can be found below:
It is really easy. I used to be Russian Orthodox (ROCOR) and I converted to Coptic Orthodox. My priest told me I could get christmated and take communion but I wouldnt be able to serve in the altar. If i got baptized I would be Coptic not Russian Orthodox. I got baptized again (it was conditional). A year later I was made a Epsaltos in the church.
[quote author=Cyril18 link=topic=13480.msg163121#msg163121 date=1359871914] It is really easy. I used to be Russian Orthodox (ROCOR) and I converted to Coptic Orthodox. My priest told me I could get christmated and take communion but I wouldnt be able to serve in the altar. If i got baptized I would be Coptic not Russian Orthodox. I got baptized again (it was conditional). A year later I was made a Epsaltos in the church. Do you mind explaining why you converted? How did your ROCOR Priest react?
Comments
Of course not. But it also wasn't that if it isn't done by a priest in the normal way, it was automatically invalid and needs to be repeated.
Any sacrament performed under normal conditions by an illegal priest is invalid.
This is well supported by the Church canons and the writings of the fathers.
[quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157932#msg157932 date=1342807998]
Of course not. But it also wasn't that if it isn't done by a priest in the normal way, it was automatically invalid and needs to be repeated.
Any sacrament performed under normal conditions by an illegal priest is invalid.
This is well supported by the Church canons and the writings of the fathers.
Is this so? Weren't bishops ordained by the meletians accepted as such once the schism was healed, without reordination? It seems very many schisms have been healed without rebaptism or reordination. What canons and writings of the fathers support this? I've seen writings saying that specific heretical groups are considered unbaptised... but not all. At least except from a few very early fathers whose opinion did not come to be the general consensus. I wish I had time now to research it. But if you want change my impression, you'll have to show me specific canons and writings, and not a few, not just say they exist.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157934#msg157934 date=1342808785]
[quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157932#msg157932 date=1342807998]
Of course not. But it also wasn't that if it isn't done by a priest in the normal way, it was automatically invalid and needs to be repeated.
Any sacrament performed under normal conditions by an illegal priest is invalid.
This is well supported by the Church canons and the writings of the fathers.
Is this so? Weren't bishops ordained by the meletians accepted as such once the schism was healed, without reordination? It seems very many schisms have been healed without rebaptism or reordination. What canons and writings of the fathers support this? I've seen writings saying that specific heretical groups are considered unbaptised... but not all. At least except from a few very early fathers whose opinion did not come to be the general consensus. I wish I had time now to research it. But if you want change my impression, you'll have to show me specific canons and writings, and not a few, not just say they exist.
The example you cited is not a good one as the schism had nothing to with faith but jurisdiction.
I am stating a fact that any sacrament performed by a heretic is invalid and that this fact is supported by the writings of the fathers and the Church canons.
If you disagree, then you have to explain why with examples either from the canons, history or the fathers.
[quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157936#msg157936 date=1342809996]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157934#msg157934 date=1342808785]
[quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157932#msg157932 date=1342807998]
Of course not. But it also wasn't that if it isn't done by a priest in the normal way, it was automatically invalid and needs to be repeated.
Any sacrament performed under normal conditions by an illegal priest is invalid.
This is well supported by the Church canons and the writings of the fathers.
Is this so? Weren't bishops ordained by the meletians accepted as such once the schism was healed, without reordination? It seems very many schisms have been healed without rebaptism or reordination. What canons and writings of the fathers support this? I've seen writings saying that specific heretical groups are considered unbaptised... but not all. At least except from a few very early fathers whose opinion did not come to be the general consensus. I wish I had time now to research it. But if you want change my impression, you'll have to show me specific canons and writings, and not a few, not just say they exist.
The example you cited is not a good one as the schism had nothing to with faith but jurisdiction.
I am stating a fact that any sacrament performed by a heretic is invalid and that this fact is supported by the writings of the fathers and the Church canons.
If you disagree, then you have to explain why with examples either from the canons, history or the fathers.
Ah, you said any illegal priest, which is different than a heretical priest. It's important to know we're talking about the same things. A schismatic is certainly an illegal priest as well. If we are going to restrict ourselves to heretical priest, then it's best to know what exactly we mean by this. You contend that the Eastern Orthodox are heretics, and not just schismatics? And you are arguing that all heretics can confer no Sacraments?
That is, you are arguing that the Eastern Orthodox have no valid sacraments, and are in effect unbaptised, and without priesthood or eucharist? it's important to know what position we are discussion before arguing past each other :) Is this a fair assessment of your position, and if not, what have I misunderstood in your stance?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157939#msg157939 date=1342811134]
[quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157936#msg157936 date=1342809996]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157934#msg157934 date=1342808785]
[quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157932#msg157932 date=1342807998]
Of course not. But it also wasn't that if it isn't done by a priest in the normal way, it was automatically invalid and needs to be repeated.
Any sacrament performed under normal conditions by an illegal priest is invalid.
This is well supported by the Church canons and the writings of the fathers.
Is this so? Weren't bishops ordained by the meletians accepted as such once the schism was healed, without reordination? It seems very many schisms have been healed without rebaptism or reordination. What canons and writings of the fathers support this? I've seen writings saying that specific heretical groups are considered unbaptised... but not all. At least except from a few very early fathers whose opinion did not come to be the general consensus. I wish I had time now to research it. But if you want change my impression, you'll have to show me specific canons and writings, and not a few, not just say they exist.
The example you cited is not a good one as the schism had nothing to with faith but jurisdiction.
I am stating a fact that any sacrament performed by a heretic is invalid and that this fact is supported by the writings of the fathers and the Church canons.
If you disagree, then you have to explain why with examples either from the canons, history or the fathers.
Ah, you said any illegal priest, which is different than a heretical priest. It's important to know we're talking about the same things. A schismatic is certainly an illegal priest as well. If we are going to restrict ourselves to heretical priest, then it's best to know what exactly we mean by this. You contend that the Eastern Orthodox are heretics, and not just schismatics? And you are arguing that all heretics can confer no Sacraments?
That is, you are arguing that the Eastern Orthodox have no valid sacraments, and are in effect unbaptised, and without priesthood or eucharist? it's important to know what position we are discussion before arguing past each other :) Is this a fair assessment of your position, and if not, what have I misunderstood in your stance?
You probably need to read my posts again to get a fair assessment of what I was talking about.
[quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157940#msg157940 date=1342812550]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157939#msg157939 date=1342811134]
[quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157936#msg157936 date=1342809996]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157934#msg157934 date=1342808785]
[quote author=jonathan_ link=topic=13480.msg157932#msg157932 date=1342807998]
Of course not. But it also wasn't that if it isn't done by a priest in the normal way, it was automatically invalid and needs to be repeated.
Any sacrament performed under normal conditions by an illegal priest is invalid.
This is well supported by the Church canons and the writings of the fathers.
Is this so? Weren't bishops ordained by the meletians accepted as such once the schism was healed, without reordination? It seems very many schisms have been healed without rebaptism or reordination. What canons and writings of the fathers support this? I've seen writings saying that specific heretical groups are considered unbaptised... but not all. At least except from a few very early fathers whose opinion did not come to be the general consensus. I wish I had time now to research it. But if you want change my impression, you'll have to show me specific canons and writings, and not a few, not just say they exist.
The example you cited is not a good one as the schism had nothing to with faith but jurisdiction.
I am stating a fact that any sacrament performed by a heretic is invalid and that this fact is supported by the writings of the fathers and the Church canons.
If you disagree, then you have to explain why with examples either from the canons, history or the fathers.
Ah, you said any illegal priest, which is different than a heretical priest. It's important to know we're talking about the same things. A schismatic is certainly an illegal priest as well. If we are going to restrict ourselves to heretical priest, then it's best to know what exactly we mean by this. You contend that the Eastern Orthodox are heretics, and not just schismatics? And you are arguing that all heretics can confer no Sacraments?
That is, you are arguing that the Eastern Orthodox have no valid sacraments, and are in effect unbaptised, and without priesthood or eucharist? it's important to know what position we are discussion before arguing past each other :) Is this a fair assessment of your position, and if not, what have I misunderstood in your stance?
You probably need to read my posts again to get a fair assessment of what I was talking about.
This thread has gone all over the place. That's part of why it's so easy to get on different pages and fail to talk to each other.
From things you've said it seems like you've mentioned repeatedly that the EO have a different faith than us. By that do you mean that they are heretics? Or what definition are you going by for different faith, and heretic?
Even the Arians were not "rebaptized" or "reordained." All they had to do was make a confession of the faith (i.e. recite the Nicene Creed) to be members of the Orthodox Church. The very obvious case in Church history is that of the Emperor Constantine, who was baptized at his death-bed by the Arian bishop, Eusebius, but this did not hinder him from being considered a saint in the Orthodox churches.
No matter what you argue here, the case still is what we affirm in the Creed: "we believe in ONE baptism for the remission of sins." The only condition for baptism is that one is baptized with water three times in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There are no other requirements - and anyone can perform a baptism, whether a bishop, priest, deacon, deaconess, layman, laywoman, or heretic.
To say that a person who has been baptized in a different denomination or by heretics needs to be rebaptized to join the Orthodox church is itself another heresy: the heresy of Donatism.
I know this is going to upset a lot of people ...
Neither Constantine nor Eusabius are saints in the OO Church. Both are heretics; the former was baptized by an Arian, the latter insisted on following Arianism. This is well documented.
Unfortunately, Constantine crept into the hymns of the Coptic Church recently in the 20th century. There is no evidence whatsoever, prior to this period, that he was a celebrated saint in the Church. Not according to the OO Church.
Even the Arians were not "rebaptized" or "reordained." All they had to do was make a confession of the faith (i.e. recite the Nicene Creed) to be members of the Orthodox Church.
Where is your reference?
I know this is going to upset a lot of people ...
Neither Constantine nor Eusabius are saints in the OO Church. Both are heretics; the former was baptized by an Arian, the latter insisted on following Arianism. This is well documented.
Unfortunately, Constantine crept into the hymns of the Coptic Church recently in the 20th century. There is no evidence whatsoever, prior to this period, that he was a celebrated saint in the Church. Not according to the Church of Alexandria.
There is no rebaptism because the heretic baptism is invalid.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13480.msg157949#msg157949 date=1342846457]
Even the Arians were not "rebaptized" or "reordained." All they had to do was make a confession of the faith (i.e. recite the Nicene Creed) to be members of the Orthodox Church.
Where is your reference?
Council of Constantinople Canon 7
"Those heretics who come over to Orthodoxy and to the society of those who are saved we receive according to the prescribed rites and customs: Arians, Macedonians, Novatianists who call themselves "pure and better", Quatrodecimans or Tetradites as well as Apollinarians. We receive them on condition that they present a written document and that they anathemize every heresy which is not in accord with the thinking of the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God, and then they should be marked with a seal, that is, anointed with chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. And as they are marked with the seal, we say "seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.
As for the Eunomians who are baptized with only one single immersion, Montanists here called Phyrgians, Sabellians, who teach the doctrine of "Father-Son" and commit other abominable things, and all other heresies - for there are many of them especially among the people coming from the country of the Galatians - all those among them that want to come over to Orthodoxy we receive as pagans: the first day, we make them Christians, the second catechumens, then the third day we exorcize them by blowing three times on their faces and ears; then we teach them and we make them come to the church for a long time to hear the scriptures. After that, we baptize them." Source, "The church of the ancient councils : the disciplinary work of the first four ecumenical councils". Here is another source from Papal Encyclicals Online. So you're saying the Coptic Orthodox Commemoration of the Saints, sung during the Midnight Psalmody that specifically includes King Constantine and his mother, is wrong? Either he is a saint in the Coptic Church or the Coptic Church includes heretics in the diptychs. Which one is it? I see you're still going back to the "rites-and-anything-ancient-are-static,-absolute,-and-right-unconditionally-but-everything-newer-than-some-arbitrary-undefined-date-is-a-fabrication" theory. This argument is flawed and doesn't even deserve a response. There is no rebaptism because the heretic baptism is invalid.
I sincerely hope you stop advocating claims and teachings contrary to our ecumenical councils. You have not given any source to show how your understanding of the Coptic Orthodox rites and customs is or isn't inline with all the evidence against you. You are the only one claiming these things without any references.
I know this is going to upset a lot of people ...
Neither Constantine nor Eusabius are saints in the OO Church. Both are heretics; the former was baptized by an Arian, the latter insisted on following Arianism. This is well documented.
Unfortunately, Constantine crept into the hymns of the Coptic Church recently in the 20th century. There is no evidence whatsoever, prior to this period, that he was a celebrated saint in the Church.
Coptic Synaxarium
Abib 8
http://www.copticchurch.net/synaxarium/11_8.html#1
1. The Departure of St. Anba Bishoy.
On this day, St. Bishoy, whose memorial is honorable, the star of the desert, departed. He was born in a town called Shansa in Egypt, and he had six brothers. His mother saw an angel in a vision saying to her, "The Lord says to you, give Me one of your children to serve Me." She answered, "Lord, take whoever you want." The angel took the hand of Anba Bishoy, who was thin and his body was frail. His mother told the angel, "My Lord, take one who is strong to serve the Lord." "This is whom the Lord has chosen," answered the Angel.
Later on, St. Bishoy went to the wilderness of Shiheet and became a monk by the hand of Anba Bemwah (Bamouyah), who also ordained St. John "Yehness" the Short a monk. St. Bishoy struggled in much asceticism and many worships that made him worthy to see the Lord Christ.
Emperor Constantine appeared to him in a vision, saying, "Had I known how great is the honor of monks, I would have abandoned my kingdom and became a monk." St. Bishoy told him, "You have banished the heathen worship and exalted Christianity, and has not Christ given you anything?" Emperor Constantine answered him, [glow=red,2,300]"The Lord has given me many gifts[/glow], but none of them is like the honor of the monks."
During his days, an ascetic old man appeared in the mountain of Ansena, who was reputed for his righteousness and to whom many people gathered. But he deviated from the true faith and the devil lead him astray. He taught that there is no Holy Spirit, and many were deceived by his sayings. Anba Bishoy heard about him, and he went to him and he had with him a weaved basket with three ears. When he visited the old man and his followers, they asked him about the reason for making three ears for the basket. He answered, "I have a Trinity, and everything I do, is like the Trinity." They said to him, "Then, Is there a thing called the Holy Spirit?" Then he started to explain to them from the Holy Scriptures, from the Old and New Testaments. He indicated to them that the Holy Spirit is One of the three Persons of the Trinity. He convinced them, and they returned to the true faith. Then he returned to his monastery in the wilderness of Scete (Shiheet). When the barbarians invaded the wilderness, he left it and dwelt on Mount Ansena, where he departed. After the time of persecution had ended, they brought his body with the body of St. Paul of Tamouh to his monastery in the wilderness of Shiheet.
May his prayers be with us. Amen.
+++
Rufinus and Sozomen both give accounts of Pope Athanasius baptising as a layperson. "While playing religious ceremonies at the shore, Athanasius baptizes his comrades at Alexandria. The bishop, Alexander, is said to have taken counsel with his clergy, and then having found that the proper form had been used, to have decided that the boys were validly baptized." The same story is mentioned in the Coptic Synaxarium on Bashans 7 with no mentioning of baptism. The Synaxarium story follows the historian Socrates account.
Regarding Lay baptism,
Tertullian, around 200 AD, in De Baptism 17 says only a bishop has the right of giving baptism and whomever he designates but continues to say that it is lawful for the laity also to bestow it in cases of necessity. The only condition is the laity must have already received the gift of baptism to give the gift of baptism. He excludes women.
Apparently, Nicephorus of Constantinople, in the ninth century had 2 canons that allowed lay baptism. There is a Greek confession of faith, in 1662, allows any Christian man or woman to baptize in emergency.
The issue of lay baptism is controversial. It is generally allowed by some churches and not allowed by other churches. The same is true about the ancient fathers regarding heretical baptism: some allowed it, some did not. But there is no universal rule that heretical baptism cannot be accepted ever.
His addition to the midnight praises in the 20th century is a mistake.
Imikhail this is a very interesting point that you are saying about Canon 7 of Constantinople, can you provide a reference from the Church (ie not even just 'Coptic') or some form of church authority as to the lack of reliability in the aforementioned canon?
thanks!
Pray for me!
I can see a very lively debate happening! :D.
Imikhail this is a very interesting point that you are saying about Canon 7 of Constantinople, can you provide a reference from the Church (ie not even just 'Coptic') or some form of church authority as to the lack of reliability in the aforementioned canon?
thanks!
Pray for me!
This is the teaching of our Church in the seminaries and in the books on Canons.
But you can read about here:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/constant.htm
"The council of Constantinople enacted four disciplinary canons: against the Arian heresy and its sects (can. 1), on limiting the power of bishops within fixed boundaries (can. 2), on ranking the see of Constantinople second to Rome in honour and dignity (can. 3), on the condemnation of Maximus and his followers (can. 4). Canons 2-4 were intended to put a stop to aggrandisement on the part of the see of Alexandria. The two following canons, 5 and 6, were framed at the synod which met in Constantinople in 382. The 7th canon is an extract from a letter which the church of Constantinople sent to Martyrius of Antioch."
Also here
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.viii.html
Fake Prophecy and Polluted Sacraments: Ecclesiastical and Imperial Reactions to Montanism P.301
His addition to the midnight praises in the 20th century is a mistake.
can you post a manuscript that has the magma3 without him?
Fr Peter,
While your experiences with the EO may be positive, sadly it is not always the case. Archbishop Stylianos, the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of Australia, firmly upholds that we are 'heretics' to this day. When HH Pope Shenouda visited Australia, Archbishop Stylianos openly warned all Greek Orthodox clergy and laity, that he would excommunicate them if they met with HH. Bishop Suriel has attempted many times to have dialogue with Archbishop Stylianos, each time having the door slammed in his face. A priest in our diocese was studying at the Greek Orthodox theological college in Sydney. Archbishop Stylianos was teaching one of the classes, and openly ridiculed our priest in front of the whole class for being a 'heretic'. I visited St Catherine's monastery at Mt Sinai, and was refused entrance to see the body of St Catherine because I was not 'orthodox'. I've also visited the Holy city of Jerusalem. The Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem treats all the Oriental Orthodox churches as heretics. Fights regularly break out between the EO Greeks and the OO Armenians because they view us as heretics. In the church where the Virgin St Mary's tomb remains, the EO pray at different times to the OO because they do not want to pray with 'heretics'. I can go on. Unfortunately, there are a lot of EO clergy and laity who still believe us to be heretics. I pray that one day the schisms of the church may cease. But as far as i'm concerned, we are still a long way off.
Keep me in your prayers,
Daniel
Some of the behavior you described is nothing short of disgusting. It's one thing to believe we are not Orthodox, but an Archbishop openly mocking and insulting a Cleric from another tradition, and clergymen picking fights at the site of the Lord's Nativity is a vile and repulsive desecration of God's name.
But you can read about here:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/constant.htm
"The council of Constantinople enacted four disciplinary canons: against the Arian heresy and its sects (can. 1), on limiting the power of bishops within fixed boundaries (can. 2), on ranking the see of Constantinople second to Rome in honour and dignity (can. 3), on the condemnation of Maximus and his followers (can. 4). Canons 2-4 were intended to put a stop to aggrandisement on the part of the see of Alexandria. The two following canons, 5 and 6, were framed at the synod which met in Constantinople in 382. The 7th canon is an extract from a letter which the church of Constantinople sent to Martyrius of Antioch."
Also here
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.viii.html
Fake Prophecy and Polluted Sacraments: Ecclesiastical and Imperial Reactions to Montanism P.301
All three references you gave have serious problems. Here is a summary of their argument:
1. All references acknowledge that the earliest Greek manuscripts have all 7 canons of Constantinople but the Latin lists only have 4 and some have 6. (Beveridge Synodica)
2. Canon 7 was not mentioned by any historian (Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret).
3. The language of Canon 7 of Constantinople I is not in the normal form of canons. (Beveridge, Hefele)
4. A manuscript 80 years later to a Bishop Martyrius of Antioch (459-470) contains the same language of Canon 7 (Fake prophets, Hefele)
Rebuttal
1. Not all lists have all canons. Assuming lists with more canons are counterfit does not equate to judicial evidence. We know the same problem occurred with the Apostolic Canons. The Coptic version has all 85 canons, most Greek lists also have 85 and some Latin lists only have 50. Does that mean lists with 85 canons have counterfit canons? No. The Scripture canon is another example. There are lists that have all Canonical books, some only the Septugaint, some only the Mesoretic, some with apocryphal texts. Does that mean the Septugiant is a fake and the Mesoretic is authentic? No. Lists in themselves do not say much. It only gives a snapshot of one time period in one city with one audience. If one writer gives 85 canons, it is because they believed all 85 are authentic and that is what they want their audience to understand. Another write may acknowledge 85 canons but feel only 50 apply to an audience. There are many reasons why one list has X number of canons and another doesn't. It is sufficient to say that the "oldest" (and I don't believe oldest means most authentic) has all 7 canons. To jump to the conclusion that 4 must be authentic, 6 possibly authentic and 7 counterfit, goes beyone any logical evidenciary analysis. Without any additional evidence, the conclusion Beveridge, Hefele and others accept as logical falls short.
2. Historians are not ecclesiological scholars. Historians are not theologians. Historians (especially Late Antiquity historians) are completely biased. We know nearly all early church historians claim opposing factions were mob leaders (Athanasius, Theophilus, Dioscorus, Cyril, etc). Just look at the quote you gave us. "Canons 2-4 were intended to put a stop to aggrandisement on the part of the see of Alexandria." I fail to see how these canons have anything particular to the see of Alexandria. They are using Alexandria as an example along with Antioch, Asia, Pontus, and Thrace. One can argue Canon 3 was an attack against Alexandria, it requires a bit of historical bias. The canon does not specifically speak of Alexandria. Historians are not theologians.
3. This is the most ridiuclous claim of them all. It again assumes that canons must have a certain verbiage in order to be authentic. The same argument is used by claims against St Paul's authorship of Hebrews. If we look at Fake Prophecies p. 301, you will see that the council of Laodicea (343) spoke against the Montanists. Canon 8 does not have the typical "let him be anathema" or "If someone does X, then this happens. If someone doesn't do X, then this happens." Canon 8 of Laodicea has a compassionate, patoral tone, not a legal, judgmental tone. Yet it is still considered a canon. So far no one has claimed this canon is counterfit. Similarly, the compassionate, pastoral tone is found in Canon 7 of Constantinople. Yet this canon (Canon 7 of Constantinople) is considered counterfit because it doesn't follow that legal, judicial canon tone.
4. This rebuttal is identical to #1. Not all lists will repeat verbatim. Just because we have a later list (or a letter in this case) that does repeat verbatim the language of Canon 7, it doesn't mean Canon 7 is a fake. The same argument is made by A. Migna in "The Vision of Theophilus". Migna argues that the vision of Theophilus must be a fake because it has events dated to the ninth century. Yet modern scholarly evidence, using technics and theories of Orality, shows that the core of a historical fact or story, transmitted orally, proceeds written manuscript evidence. Finding a written manuscript does not negate the oral tradition. Just because Beveridge, Hefele and others found a 5th century letter doesn't mean that Canon 7 is a later addition. The fact that earlier Greek manuscripts have all 7 canons negates this theory in itself.
5. No Orthodox Church has officially claimed Canon 7 of Constantinople is fake. This is different than other canons. Rome disagreed with Chalcedonian canon 27 (I think that's the number). Until an Apostolic Church officially approves or rejects a canon or council or a heresy, we cannot take it upon ourselves to make general assumptions of validity. You have not provided any official condmenation of Canon 7.
6. It's easy to supply evidence of Protestant theories. Orthodoxy operates differently. As long as there is more than enough unviersal belief that Canon 7 is authentic, then it is valid since all Orthodox churches already claimed the council is valid. The same holds for the Scripture canon. Plenty of fathers agreed on the canon and officially the Septugaint canon is accepted among all Orthodox churches.
Like mentioned before, this thread has gone all over the place. The fact remains Eastern Orthodox are not heretics. They do not need to be rebaptized. There is plenty of evidence to support this (both officially from the Coptic Church and unofficially from patristic writings).
The Coptic Church has officially claimed Canon 7 of Constantinople is fake. You were just not informed but now you are.
You can rebuttal, analyze, philosophize, criticize, theorize, ....
The bottom line is that canon 7 is a forgery and we do not accept it. This is the teaching of the Coptic Church.
The OO never accepts heretical baptisms. All sacraments have to be done on the hands of a legal priest.
If anyone would like to listen to the Seminary lectures of our Coptic Church, on this point of Canon 7, please pm me.
The Coptic Church has officially claimed Canon 7 of Constantinople is fake. You were just not informed but now you are.
Where's your reference? An official document from the Coptic Church (not Protestant academia) has been requested a long time ago and has not been furnished yet. Again, don't attack me with condescending comments. Stick to the argument and defend yourself. I already gave you plenty of references why Canon 7 is not a forgery. If you continue to claim Canon 7 is a forgery, then it makes it easy to say all of the Council of Constantinople is a forgery or at least not ecumenical and binding. Give any reference from any ancient or modern father that this is the teaching of the Coptic Church. Now you are conflating claims to validate your false argument. No one ever said the Oriental Orthodox accepts heretical baptism. No one accepts heresy. However, the fathers have decided what to do with repentant sinners who were given the grace of baptism by heretical clergy. The majority believed that real baptism was only necessary on certain heresies and not others. Your second claim, "all sacraments have to be done on the hands of a legal priests", is too broad to discuss. Running the risk of being accused for polemics, we are arguing over what a legal priest is and Orthodox priests, whether Chalcedonian or not, are legitimate clergy even if they don't believe we are. Seminary lectures do not amount to official statements by the Holy Synod or patristic fathers. You'll have to find something more authoritative.
If you need to know more, call Bishop Youssef, Bishop Serabion, Fr. Shenouda Maher, Fr. Moses of LA Diocese
PM me and I will get you their contact info.
My experience does not confirm this presumption. When I felt that I had to find another traditional apostolic church community because the Catholic Church of my birth had abandoned its traditional beliefs and practices, I visited the various available major orthodox communities. This was at the time of the Great U.S. Antiochian Orthodox Evangelical Mission, etc.. The familiar, English speaking atmosphere was easiest for me to adapt to. I was accepted by an abbreviated anointing. A year or so later, I was sponsor/god father for a convert from a Baptist church. He also became Orthodox by a similar anointing. I attended this Antiochian parish and visited the various other EO churches for 8-10 years. During this time I began braving to visit a "heretical" Coptic Church. I liked it.
During my Antiochian life I learned that the U.S. hierarch of the Antiochian Archdiocese decided that it was more "evangelical" (and practical) to receive most converts by this anointing. Several thousands of "americans" became orthodox in this process, which is still "pitching" this modern (ancient) orthodoxy. Many of these new converts were encouraged to attend seminary to be ordained as orthodox priests. Protestant and Catholic clergy also became "orthodox" priests by various similar accommodations. I heard several discussions among devote "old country" Antiochian priests and laity that criticized this unorthodox initiation. But, Metropolitan P. forbid any other initiation (baptism). There was at least one incident where one of these "convert" priests was deposed because he obtained Orthodox Baptism to complete his conversion. It is my understanding that the majority of current U.S. Antiochian Orthodox priests "became Orthodox" by this anointing process. Of course, all of these "unbaptized" EO have the same EO credentials as all infant baptized "Greeks." They are not the same, and those who misrepresent them as such seem to have serious, unfounded ecumenical hopes and delusions. Maybe even those who profess precise, accredited analysis. Throw your goad away, Rem. Except perhaps in some of the Protestantized Coptic missions, I doubt that many Coptic Christians have been similarly deceived of their own Orthodox spiritual status. How do ancient canons relate to these new heretics? Continued progressive and open minded Coptic innovations, especially in gender and family theology and practice could easily put the Coptic Church in the same sinking condition. By the way, so called Antiochian Orthodox, are actually the Greek Orthodox Church of Syria, so these deviations are actually Greek Orthodox. How do you distinguish Greek from Greek? More garlic? wine?
I'll never understand God's blessing to lead me blindly to my re-baptism by the Coptic Church. Thank you, imikhail for explaining its value to us. Hopefully I'll be blessed to be able to complete the rest of my pilgrimage to God's Kingdom, through His always vigilant and faithful Holy Coptic Church. Please pray for me and for the Coptic Church.
So, the process for a Greek Orthodox to enter the Coptic Church should depend upon his Greek spiritual credentials. If properly baptized and chrismated as Orthodox, his Coptic initiation should be as his local Coptic bishop prescribes. I believe that imikhail advises that it should be by the blessing of Holy Chrismation. With the Holy Coptic Myron? That is first class of the highest order!
Can anybody explain me what is Twelve Chapters of St. Cyrill of Alexandria? I tried to find this book on the internet but I didn't find. I saw the list of books which St. Cyrill wrote but I didn't find such a name. Can anybody explain me when it was written, concerning what and how is the full name of this book?
Hello everybody!
Can anybody explain me what is Twelve Chapters of St. Cyrill of Alexandria? I tried to find this book on the internet but I didn't find. I saw the list of books which St. Cyrill wrote but I didn't find such a name. Can anybody explain me when it was written, concerning what and how is the full name of this book?
The "twelve chapters" of St. Cyril are the twelve anathemas contained in St. Cyril's third letter to the impious heretic Nestorius.
The letter, along with the twelve chapters/anathemas, can be found below:
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/document03.php
It is really easy. I used to be Russian Orthodox (ROCOR) and I converted to Coptic Orthodox. My priest told me I could get christmated and take communion but I wouldnt be able to serve in the altar. If i got baptized I would be Coptic not Russian Orthodox. I got baptized again (it was conditional). A year later I was made a Epsaltos in the church.
Do you mind explaining why you converted? How did your ROCOR Priest react?