› ›

Middle East Council of Churches

ZoxsasiZoxsasi
edited December 1969 in Coptic Orthodox Church
Can someone kindly explain me why H.H Holiness does not want to be included in the MECC?

http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/news/wake-threats-egyptian-church-leaders-talk-security

This is very odd. I thought that only we were on the MECC, but even His Holiness was even honorary President of it!

Thanks for any clarification. Maybe i misunderstood the article.

Comments

  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    I am not sure what you mean about 'only we were on the MECC'?

    The Coptic representation was withdrawn recently because of an argument on the council. The Coptic Orthodox have been major participants on the council until very recently. It is a forum for local Church communities in the Middle East.

    I guess when the situation which caused the disagreement is resolved then the Coptic Orthodox will join the council again.

    Father Peter
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    [quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9970.msg121891#msg121891 date=1289313672]
    I am not sure what you mean about 'only we were on the MECC'?


    Sorry Fr.. it was my mistake. I made a typo. I meant to have said : I thought we were ON the MECC - instead it came out as "ONLY".

    I mean that I thought that not only we were members of the MECC, but that H.H Pope Shenouda was even an Honorary President.


    The Coptic representation was withdrawn recently because of an argument on the council.

    Oh my goodness! I was unaware. What are the implications of this?


    The Coptic Orthodox have been major participants on the council until very recently. It is a forum for local Church communities in the Middle East.

    I guess when the situation which caused the disagreement is resolved then the Coptic Orthodox will join the council again.

    Father Peter

    May I ask what the disagreement involved?
  • ilovesaintmarkilovesaintmark
    In the hierarchy and set-up in the MECC. There are separate Presidents for each family within the MECC (Oriental, Byzantine, Catholic, Protestant).  The Secretary General is in essence the formal representative of the MECC.

    As for the reasons for pulled representation, there a bunch of issues that have festered over the last couple of decades:

    1.  The MECC did nothing to help with the return of His Holiness relative to the exile and deposition imposed by Sadat in the 80's.  Gabriel Habib, the Secretary General, would even block discussions when they would be brought to the floor for discussion.  When inquiry would be made by the National Council of Churches of the USA, things would be fluffed.  This is not a main feature, at this point, but I mention it because it sets the tone.

    2.  The attempts of the Latin Church to bring the Assyrian Church of the East into the MECC as a full member.  This was a resultant of the manipulations after the RCC reached rapprochment with the Assyrian Church of the East (the Nestorian Church).  This was a very difficult debate.

    3.  Political manipulations within the Council.  I will leave that vague--intentionally.

    4.  The rift between the two Jurisdictions of the Armenian Church.  This actually carries to the United States, whereby His Holiness has instructed that there be no participation in dialogues unless both branches of the Armenian Church are present.  To give background:  the two jurisdictions try to one up each other, block each other, etc.  Catholicos Aram I (of the House of Cilicia) brokered the protocol that has allowed for the fragile full reunion of the Coptic Church and the Ethiopian Church.  As such, and for fraternal regard, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, wishes that full accord be granted to His Holiness Aram I and his representatives.
     
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    [quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9970.msg121925#msg121925 date=1289357162]
    In the hierarchy and set-up in the MECC. There are separate Presidents for each family within the MECC (Oriental, Byzantine, Catholic, Protestant).  The Secretary General is in essence the formal representative of the MECC.

    As for the reasons for pulled representation, there a bunch of issues that have festered over the last couple of decades:

    1.  The MECC did nothing to help with the return of His Holiness relative to the exile and deposition imposed by Sadat in the 80's.  Gabriel Habib, the Secretary General, would even block discussions when they would be brought to the floor for discussion.  When inquiry would be made by the National Council of Churches of the USA, things would be fluffed.  This is not a main feature, at this point, but I mention it because it sets the tone.

    2.  The attempts of the Latin Church to bring the Assyrian Church of the East into the MECC as a full member.  This was a resultant of the manipulations after the RCC reached rapprochment with the Assyrian Church of the East (the Nestorian Church).  This was a very difficult debate.

    3.  Political manipulations within the Council.  I will leave that vague--intentionally.

    4.  The rift between the two Jurisdictions of the Armenian Church.  This actually carries to the United States, whereby His Holiness has instructed that there be no participation in dialogues unless both branches of the Armenian Church are present.  To give background:  the two jurisdictions try to one up each other, block each other, etc.  Catholicos Aram I (of the House of Cilicia) brokered the protocol that has allowed for the fragile full reunion of the Coptic Church and the Ethiopian Church.  As such, and for fraternal regard, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, wishes that full accord be granted to His Holiness Aram I and his representatives.
     


    Thanks ILSM,

    It sound like an indian movie. What worries me more is how is it you know all this??
    I hope you werent responsible for any this ILSM!! "Blessed are the peacemakers" ...

    The reason why I can be light-hearted about all this is because I KNOW very well the amount of love and respect there is between us all in the different denominations.

    I am bit a shocked at the "nestorian" Assyrian Church of the East - who would they be?? Who is their leader? I didnt know that there were any Nestorians left.
  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    Yes, the Assyrian Church of the East still exists. Some became members of the Roman Catholic communion, but the independent community also exists, and is present in the West. It has also suffered much persecution at the hands of Muslims.

    They don't like being called Nestorians any more than we like being called Eutychians. Of course they do venerate Eutyches, but they would more properly be called Theodoreans.

    Father Peter
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    [quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9970.msg121943#msg121943 date=1289382122]
    Yes, the Assyrian Church of the East still exists. Some became members of the Roman Catholic communion, but the independent community also exists, and is present in the West. It has also suffered much persecution at the hands of Muslims.

    They don't like being called Nestorians any more than we like being called Eutychians. Of course they do venerate Eutyches, but they would more properly be called Theodoreans.

    Father Peter


    Dear Fr. Peter,

    I'm sorry to display my ignorance openly here, but I'd love to learn more about this. I am not a theologian, so please be patient with me:  : (

    Let's get this straight.

    Nestorianism emphasizes the disunion between the human and divine natures of Jesus? Correct? Who or which Church is Nestorian?

    Eutychianism violently opposed nestorianism - correct? Apparently, Eutyches said that Christ's Humanity was absorbed by His Divinity. - That isn't correct is it?

    According to this dictionary (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Eutychian+heresy) it says that even Dioscorus was OK with this idea. I thought that this is incorrect??

    I know for a fact that the Coptic Orthodox Church doesn't believe that Christ's Divinity absorbed His Humanity: this is not miaphysism, but monophysism. This is not true.

    I know that the RC had this way of explaining Christology in terms of Christ having 2 natures and it DID or sometimes it does come across as if they are nestorians, but after discussing this with a few catholic theologians they are now saying that they are miaphysite (like us).



  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    Nestorius, following his Master, Theodore of Mopsuestia, along with Ibas of Edessa and Theodoret of Cyrrhus, all taught a form of Christology in which the Word of God was not the direct subject of all of the human experiences of Jesus Christ. They all spoke of one person and two natures, and meant by this that when we saw Jesus Christ it was possible for us to say that we were looking iconically at the Word, who was united with him, but when Jesus Christ was crucified it was not the Word of God directly who was being crucified.

    Eutyches was an old monk, and not very clear in his thinking. He did not teach what others have insisted that he did, although he was in error. Later followers did teach a form of the union of the Divine with the human that diminished the integrity of the humanity, but this teaching had already been attacked by St Cyril.

    There is a chapter on Eutyches in my book, Orthodox Christology - http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/orthodox-christology/10969273

    St Dioscorus did not teach any error. He certainly did not agree with Eutyches in any of his deficient Christology, and Eutyches was exonorated at Ephesus 449 only because he was willing and able to give an Orthodox confession of Faith. He was not received back until he had done so.

    Nestorius was only a proxy for the bigger heretic, Theodore of Mopsuestia. When Nestorius was being attacked it was, to a great extent, because Theodore of Mopsuestia could not be directly condemned, as being dead. Even when colleagues of Nestorius were willing to condemn him, they never condemned Theodore of Mopsuestia, whose Christology was behind their own.

    In historical and modern times the Assyrian Church of the East, which was originally most of the Church in the Persian Empire, has followed the teachings of Theodore of Mospuestia. They still revere Nestorius as a saint, but their teaching is not based on Nestorius, but directly on Theodore. The ACE is present in Iraq and Syria, and now in the US/Canada and Europe. It is not very large now, having faced the same waves of persecution as other Christian communities.

    Father Peter
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    [quote author=peterfarrington link=topic=9970.msg121951#msg121951 date=1289396946]

    Eutyches was an old monk, and not very clear in his thinking. He did not teach what others have insisted that he did, although he was in error. Later followers did teach a form of the union of the Divine with the human that diminished the integrity of the humanity, but this teaching had already been attacked by St Cyril.

    There is a chapter on Eutyches in my book, Orthodox Christology - http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/orthodox-christology/10969273

    St Dioscorus did not teach any error. He certainly did not agree with Eutyches in any of his deficient Christology, and Eutyches was exonorated at Ephesus 449 only because he was willing and able to give an Orthodox confession of Faith. He was not received back until he had done so.


    Hi Fr.

    That was my understanding. Dioscorus was not in error, but according to the link I sent you, they say that he agreed with Eutyches.

    Did you see it? It was an encyclopedia.

    http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Eutychian+heresy

    Here: I'll quote it for you:


    Eutyches (y`tĭkēs), c.378–c.452, archimandrite in Constantinople, sponsor of Eutychianism, the first phase of Monophysitism. He was the leader in Constantinople of the most violent opponents of Nestorianism, among whom was Dioscurus, successor to St. Cyril (d. 444) as patriarch of Alexandria. Whereas Cyril had agreed with the Antiochenes in 433 that Christ had two natures, Eutyches and Dioscurus insisted that Christ's humanity was absorbed in his divinity and that to accept two natures at all was Nestorian. When Theodoret attacked Eutychianism (447), Dioscurus retaliated by anathematizing him, and Emperor Theodosius II, who was friendly to Eutychianism, confined Theodoret to his diocese (448). But Eutyches was accused of heresy and deposed by a local synod called by St. Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople (Nov., 448). Eutyches appealed to his friends, and Theodosius called a general council to meet at Ephesus, Aug. 1, 449. This, the famous Robber Synod (Latrocinium), was disgraceful from the beginning. Dioscurus presided and disenfranchised most of the clergy inimical to Eutyches. The so-called council reinstated Eutyches, declared him orthodox, and deposed Flavian and Eutyches' accuser, Eusebius of Dorylaeum. Flavian denied the council's authority; the papal legates denounced the council's proceedings. The soldiery, called in by Dioscurus, compelled an affirmative vote; Flavian was severely beaten by members of the so-called synod and died shortly thereafter. The legates barely escaped. Theodoret was deposed. After the death of Theodosius (450) his orthodox successors convened the Council of Chalcedon (see Chalcedon, Council of) to right the wrongs of the Robber Synod, and Eutychianism was ended. Eutyches was deposed and exiled.

    This is from Columbia University press (from what I can see).

    This is clearly in contradiction to other Encyclopedias.
  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    Unfortunately anyone can produce a book and call it an encyclopedia and it can say anything, even downright lies.

    Father Peter
  • ilovesaintmarkilovesaintmark
    Which brings me to a point:  Every deacon should be required to read Fr. Peter's book--Orthodox Christology.  The book is amazing.  I would like to write a couple of comments in a previous thread to give a more detailed thought on this book.

    Zoxsasi,

    I believe the current head of th Nestorian Church is :  Mar Dinka IV.  At one point he stationed himself in Chicago, IL (USA).  Their official headquarters is in Baghdad.  They have a funny system of succession--dynastic and familial--uncle to nephew, when possible.  Their numbers are about 60,000 at most.

    You may want to read Metropolitan Bishoy's book about the Assyrian Church of the East.  Let me tell you, he does not spare any comments.
  • ilovesaintmarkilovesaintmark
    And another thing Sasi,  I had nothing to do with causing the above issues.  You seem to think I have quit a stretch to my arm.  I was involved, indirectly, in dealing with some of the historical repercussions.

    After you read His Eminence's book, you will realize that the Nestorian Church has conducted itself with considerable manipulation and infidelity to proper Ecclesiastical protocol and conduct.  I think you will laugh when you read it.

    Definitely get Fr. Peter's book from Lulu.com--worth every penny.  You can definitely use it as a reference "bible".
  • ZoxsasiZoxsasi
    [quote author=ilovesaintmark link=topic=9970.msg121958#msg121958 date=1289402224]
    Which brings me to a point:  Every deacon should be required to read Fr. Peter's book--Orthodox Christology.  The book is amazing.  I would like to write a couple of comments in a previous thread to give a more detailed thought on this book.

    Zoxsasi,

    I believe the current head of th Nestorian Church is :  Mar Dinka IV.  At one point he stationed himself in Chicago, IL (USA).  Their official headquarters is in Baghdad.  They have a funny system of succession--dynastic and familial--uncle to nephew, when possible.  Their numbers are about 60,000 at most.

    You may want to read Metropolitan Bishoy's book about the Assyrian Church of the East.  Let me tell you, he does not spare any comments.


    This is just unbelievable ILSM.

    Hangon a sec... wasn't it his church that was attacked last sunday?
    Are they affiliated to the Roman Catholic Church?

    I'll buy father peter's book tomorrow. It will probably save me time in asking questions on here I guess.

    But can someone just tell me which patriarch in the middle east is responsible for which Church? Its extremely confusing

    The Syrian Orthodox
    The Assyrian Greek Catholic
    The Assyrian Antichian Greek Catholic
    The Syrian Assyrian Syrian Asssyrian Church of Syria (lol)

    Cheers
  • peterfarringtonpeterfarrington
    I wouldn't worry about memorising all the names of all the Church leaders. Though we should all know the names of the heads of the Churches in our own communion.

    The problem is that there are rather a lot.

    There is for instance, just in the see of Antioch:

    The Syrian Orthodox Church - Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I Iwas

    The Antiochian Orthodox Church - Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, Ignatius IV (Hazim)

    The Syrian Catholic Church - Patriarch Ignace Joseph III Younan

    The Maronite Church - Cardinal Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir

    The Melkite Greek Catholic Church - Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, Gregory III Laham.

  • ilovesaintmarkilovesaintmark
    Just to throw a wrench into the works (sorry, but I have to do it):

    The Syrian Orthodox Church (non-Chalcedonian) have also used the term:  Syriac or even at one point "Assyrian".  The Holy Synod passed an edict that the term "Assyrian" should not be used in order to avoid confusion with the Nestorian Church aka 'Assyrian Church of the East'.

    There is still one parish in the United States that refuses to drop the name "Assyrian" in lieu of Syrian or Syriac.  The Assyrian heritage and not the Assyrian theology are the basis for this terminology battle.  The Assyrian Civilization is a source of pride for them, no different than the Pharaonic heritage is for us as Coptics.

    The Armenians when referring to the Sister Oriental Orthodox Church (non-Chalcedonian) tend to use "Assyrian" regardless of the Syrians not liking it.
  • AntoniousNIkolasAntoniousNIkolas

    Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I just cannot let this stand.  ilovesaintmark said:

    [quote]1.  The MECC did nothing to help with the return of His Holiness relative to the exile and deposition imposed by Sadat in the 80's.  Gabriel Habib, the Secretary General, would even block discussions when they would be brought to the floor for discussion.  When inquiry would be made by the National Council of Churches of the USA, things would be fluffed.  This is not a main feature, at this point, but I mention it because it sets the tone.

    [b]2.  The attempts of the Latin Church to bring the Assyrian Church of the East into the MECC as a full member.  This was a resultant of the manipulations after the RCC reached rapprochment with the Assyrian Church of the East (the Nestorian Church).  This was a very difficult debate.[/b]

    3.  Political manipulations within the Council.  I will leave that vague--intentionally.

    4.  The rift between the two Jurisdictions of the Armenian Church.  This actually carries to the United States, whereby His Holiness has instructed that there be no participation in dialogues unless both branches of the Armenian Church are present.  To give background:  the two jurisdictions try to one up each other, block each other, etc.  Catholicos Aram I (of the House of Cilicia) brokered the protocol that has allowed for the fragile full reunion of the Coptic Church and the Ethiopian Church.  As such, and for fraternal regard, His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, wishes that full accord be granted to His Holiness Aram I and his representatives.[/quote]

    None of the four points he raises make much sense to me.  Point by point, here is why:

    1. His post was made in 2010.  That seems a bit late in the game to leave the MECC over the body's failure to adequately advocate for His Holiness Pope Shenouda III of Thrice-Blessed Memory during the Sadat era of the 1980s.

    2. The Coptic Church apparently succeeded in barring the entry of the ACoE in spite of what ilovesaintmark characterizes as "the Latin Church's efforts" to bring them in.  (Was it really just the Roman Church acting unilaterally?)  Why leave when you won the battle?

    3. Deliberately vague political manipulations within the council - Who knows what this means?

    4. The so-called rift between the Armenian jurisdictions in no way impacts upon the functioning of the MECC.  Ilovesaintmark seems to be operating under the mistaken impression that Etchmiadzin is on the MECC but has "blocked" Cilicia from participating.  He is flat out wrong.  Cilicia is on the MECC, Etchmiadzin is not.  This has nothing to do with one Armenian jurisdiction "blocking" the other, but rather with geography.  Etchmiadzin is not in the Middle East so it is not on the MECC, just like Addis Ababa, Asmara, and Kerala.  The Armenian jurisdictions don't "block" each other from participating in ecumenical bodies anyway.  They are both represented in the WCC, the body that dialogues with the RCC, etc.

    Ilovesaintmark is apparently just speculating.

  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    AN, I'm glad you came by to voice your concerns. I hope you can come by more often. Unfortunately, ILSM no longer posts here. I will not pretend to represent what ILSM meant or said. Thank you for the clarification in the Armenian Church. 

    Come by more often.
  • stranger
    "The Coptic Church apparently succeeded in barring the entry of the ACoE
    in spite of what ilovesaintmark characterizes as "the Latin Church's
    efforts" to bring them in"

    Another triumphant day for "orthodoxy"? May be we need to add the anathemas to our liturgical prayers like the EO folks?
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    We steady do have anathemas in our hymns and synaxarium.
Sign In or Register to comment.