If the OO keep on telling us that we are Miaphysites, why does the EO insist that we are Monophysites?
Its a tad bit patronising of them to keep on telling us that we are monophysites
Why do they think that we are monophysites in our Christology? Who told them that?
Which Coptic theologian told them that we are mono?
I had a chat with Anba Angaelos, and he insisted that we are miaphysites.
So from where do they get this understanding that we are mono?
I admit, when I'm talking to catholics or protestants, for the sake of peace, I try to find what we share in common with them so it makes the conversation less antagonistic. However, with EO's, I can't help but feel that they are searching to find us heretic. Even if we tell them "we are the same as you!" - they deny it.
Our priest went to Greece once, and asked to pray in the grotto of Saint John. They threw him out, and told him he was a heretic.
This is a shame because I love the Greek Orthodox Church. And yes, let it be known I love the Greeks, the greek food, the greek language, the greek islands.. so I'm a bit disappointed at this.
Why doesnt our church just create a Facebook Petition where every Copt writes a few lines saying that he is miaphysite - and we can send this to H.H Pope Bartholemew.
The serbian orthodox seem to be OK with us; I get the impression from going along to their liturgies that they either don't care about the distinction between mia and mono, or they are really knowledgeable that they understand perfectly our faith and accept us.
Comments
In Christ
Deacon Peter
There is no problem with the E.P. Bartholomew. My bishop, Abba Seraphim, has been a private guest of his several times when he has visited Patriarch Mesrob II of the Armenians in Istanbul. Indeed when I was blessed to be at the enthronement of Patriarch Mesrob a few years ago the E.P. Bartholomew attended and was seated on his own throne in the Armenian Cathedral.
In Christ
Deacon Peter
Sorry Peter,
This is really confusing. Pope Bartholemew accepts us and sees as Miaphysite, and yet his entire Church see us as Mono? Is that what you are saying?
I feel we all love Greek food, greek yoghurt, greek culture and greek churches, and we all want an end to this mess. Especially if there are Greek Churches where there aren't any Coptic Churches.
So why then does the Eastern Orthodox (EO) insist (clergy, laity, etc) that we are mono??
OO stands for Oriental Orthodox - those Orthodox who belong to the Coptic, Armenian, Indian, Syrian, Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox, and those folk in the British and French Orthodox Churches which are part of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
Of course Eastern and Oriental mean the same thing, but it is a way for both groups of Orthodox to refer to themselves and the others in a way that is fairly understandable. The EO consider themselves the Orthodox Church and the OO consider themselves the Orthodox Church. Both sides are discovering that the other Orthodox are also Orthodox.
In Christ
Deacon Peter
Lots of EO don't think we are heretics.
It is not always clear whether those who do are a noisy minority or not.
I am in touch with many EO clergy and laity, and have spoken with EO bishops, who do not think we are heretics at all.
In Christ
Deacon Peter
they had a big dispute in 451 about who was heretical and who was right but made it up in 1990. yeah, a few cebturies of pride but we got there in the end! ;)
soon, God-willing we will all be able to take communion together but until then there are a few churches that are lighting the way by having their own inter-church communion agreements.
for eg as copts (also applies to british and french orthodox and i think to eritrean) we can have communion in the romanian orthodox church.
some people haven't realised the argument is no longer running though; hence QT's priest's experience.
insha allah we will all learn more grace and forgiveness
:)
That is not to disagree with your main point that there are many EO who either through ignorance, misunderstanding or other reasons wish to perpetuate a description of our faith which we would not recognise and indeed which we consider blasphemous.
In Christ
Deacon Peter
Peter / Mabsoota : The EO do not accept us. I know. I tried to take communion there 100's of times when I was living in Turkey. I had 2 options: to either go to the Catholic mass (which was charismatic) or the same Church as Pope bartholemew. Given that my dancing skills are limited - especially in a Church, I decided that the Catholic Charismatic wasn't worth it and I attended the Greek Orthodox Church.
Many MANY times they told me that I was not allowed to have communion there.
Our priest went to Greece and was thrown out by greek priests for being OO. They told him "when you discover the TRUE faith, you can come here!". lol
So, tell me : WHO exactly in the EO is for us. And who is against us? And also, tell me, if you please : Why can't we have Holy Communion in the EO if, as you say, they do not see us as heretics???
as it took 1500 yrs to sort out the main argument, u can see how its taking more than 18 years to sort the details!
I'm not sure what you want me to say?
Clearly there are some EO who do not allow us to have communion and consider us heretics. But there are many other who do not consider us heretics, and other bishops and priests who allow OO communion.
I know that when one of the BOC congregations found the Church it used condemned by the council just before Pascha one year, one of the EO bishops in the UK offered hospitality and was willing to commune the congregation. This was not needed, but it was offered.
In Christ
Deacon Peter
Can we have communion in the EO?
Thanks
The serbian orthodox seem to be OK with us; I get the impression from going along to their liturgies that they either don't care about the distinction between mia and mono, or they are really knowledgeable that they understand perfectly our faith and accept us.
You were at our (Serbian Orthodox) liturgies? Great! Where?
Reffering to OO, let's say that there are 3 groups within Serbian Orthodox CHurch:
1) Predominant "non informed" group - they are actually surprised when hear that there is a division between EO - OO. They convinced that Armenians, Copts, Etiopeans etc are Orthodox like we, and they are sad when they are told about the fact of the sad division between us
2) "better informed" group - those are people who read more about Church history and Orthodox theology and they think that it it is theological (i.e. Christological) problem that divides us and not just different expression of the same Faith. They label OO as heretic because it adhere to so-called "moderate monophysitism" of Severus of Antioch. (to be honest, no one gives a clear definition what is "moderate monophysitism". Their knowledge is mostly based on one-side view on OO. Majority of them haven't read directly from the sources (i.e. OO articles), or they read but not enough.
3) "best informed" group :-) They are totally aware of the fact that the essence of the Faith that EO and OO confess is the same. Therefore, for them OO are trully Orthodox as we, EO.
At the beginning, my position was first group, then second and now I am a member of the third group :) It is very important for any EO interested in the dialogue between our communities to research and to read, listen and learn on OO Christological position directly from OO themselves ..
May be it would be better to name it: EO AND OO ;)
I asked a very well known European Russian Orthodox bishop if he would commune me if I was in an isolated situation in one of the cities where he is bishop and he said he would. In fact he said that he does commune OO. Even that an OO is a senior member of his one of his parishes, as an OO, not as a convert to EO.
I have known a ROCOR priest for many many years and he communes Copts and Ethiopians. (ROCOR are fairly hard-core EO).
It all depends though. The categories of people which Ivan describes are found in all EO and OO Churches.
There is also a difference between refusing communion because we are not formally in communion and considering us heretics. My own bishop, and other OO bishops in the UK, are often guests of Archbishop Gregorios of the Greek Orthodox. I do not believe he considers the OO heretics but that does not mean he can lightly allow communion.
I am in touch with many other EO priests and some monks who do not consider us heretics. My circle of contacts is not large but I would say that many of those I am in contact with do not consider us heretics, some do not know, and a minority are aggressively polemical against us.
In Christ
Deacon Peter
i have been on the romanian orthodox official website and they gladly label themselves the first EO church to ratify the 1990 geneva agreement.
and what is ROCOR? i am asking publicly in case anyone else is as slow as me to work out abbreviations! ;)
thanks for yr informative answers as always :)
I guess it would be best to ask ahead just so that the priest and bishop aren't put on the spot.
Do you have a link to where the Romanian Church says it has ratified the Agreement. That is great news.
ROCOR stands for Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. When the Russian revolution took place the Church in Russia came to be persecuted and even dominated by the Communist authorities. The Russian Church in Europe became functionally independent and always stood in resistance to those bishops in Russia who seemed to have colluded with the Communists. As the situation in Russia got worse so the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia tended to be more and more negative towards the Patriarchal Church and refused to be in communion with it. They have tended to be very anti-ecumenical and many of those priests I know who are antagonistic towards the OO are in the ROCOR. In very recent times ROCOR and the MP (Moscow Patriarchate) have come back into communion, though some ROCOR groups have rejected reunion with the MP which they had been taught to reject as being a false Church.
I get a mailing from one of these splinter groups which seems to consist of a handful of people who consider themselves the last true Orthodox. I would expect all of these groups would consider us heretics. Indeed one priest from ROCOR told me that the reason he was against the talks between the EO and OO was not because they included the Copts, whom he said he respected, but because they included the Antiochean Orthodox who he did not think were really Orthodox, though they are one of the EO Churches.
Hope this helps
Deacon Peter
www.patriarhia.ro
the page about dialogue with the OO churches is not yet translated. here it is in romanian:
http://www.patriarhia.ro/ro/relatii_externe/dialog_intercrestin_1.html
it says that the synod on 8th-9th december 1994 accepted the texts of the dialogues of 1993, which were ones that built on the 1990 meeting in geneva. there is a subcommision working on liturgical unity and it is not clear from the document what the situation is about communion. however my deacon friend from london tells me that it should be ok for us to take communion.
if anyone else on the website has further information (about romanian or any other EO churches) please let us know as this is a special area of interest for many of us.
may God bless you all
I went to Saint Seraphin de Sarov Church in Paris, in the 15th Arrondissement.
It was just a small bicycle ride from my home, but I used to take the metro to get there.
Anyway, the weirdest thing was - i went there, and to my surprise I found a LOT of coptic people there!!
Although it had the words Serbian Orthodox on the door, the liturgy was in Russian. I told the priest there that i was Coptic, and he loved it. I mean, he really loved the idea that i was Coptic, and i had communion there. The way they do communion is really interesting. The alter is interesting. They have like a door, where we have a curtain. The priest says the name of EACH person when they have communion. He says "Your servant..<name" and then gives the person the communion.
Anyway - I found that there were loads of Coptic people there!! I couldnt believe it.
Its just, i travel a lot, and there's 99% chance that one comes across a Greek Church than a Coptic one.
Peter - so, what are my rights as a Coptic Orthodox Christian going to a Greek Orthodox Church?
I went to a really nice Greek Orthodox church in London last year, and it was brilliant. The sermon was just perfect.
I am not sure that you have any rights. Indeed none of us have rights in approaching the most Holy Mysteries. If our own priests considered that we should not receive then they can refuse us. We cannot demand.
In the case of any EO church it depends on the bishop and priest. That is just the way it is. It is the same the other way round. An EO cannot demand communion in an OO Church, but if the bishop and priest consider it appropriate then that is OK.
In the case where there are no OO Churches around it is sometimes the case that EO priests are more hospitable, but as you found in Paris, it can also be the case in a city where there are OO Churches. I know EO priests who would commune me, and EO priests who would not. There is no rule, and we have no rights.
But that doesn't mean that we should not work hard to make our Orthodox faith better known so that any separation caused by misunderstanding can be cleared up. The Romanian Orthodox Church has synodally recognised the Agreed Statement and therefore does consider that we and they have the same Faith. But even that is not the same as being in full communion.
In Christ
Deacon Peter
Its really good to have you on board this forum!!
What exactly is left for us to have or to be in full communion with the EO?. Do you have any visibility on that?
You said that we should try to make our OO church better in promoting its faith. I agree - but that's not my prime duty. My duty is to practice my faith and to worry about my own personal salvation. If there's no OO Church where I live, then unless I am accepted in an EO Church, I'll be totally stuck. The R.C. is great for having fun and dancing, but if you are looking to benefit from any spiritual richness, I think it will be hard to find there.
When i asked what is our rights: I meant what are we allowed to do "can we go along to their vespers, christmas parties, can we get our kids baptised there, communion etc?
Thanks again Peter for your responses. I usually ask a question and leave it open for ages until an answer comes, but you've really sped things up.
In the US I know that many Ethiopians go to EO churches and make that their home, without ceasing to be Ethiopian Orthodox. But it depends on the local circumstances.
There is an official agreement between the Greek Church of Alexandria and the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate that in the case of mixed marriages the family can commune in either Church - so the issue of communion between EO and OO in that context is already resolved in principle.
Likewise there is already an agreement between the Syrian and Antiochean Orthodox in the Middle East that there is a full inter-communion, mostly because many of these Orthodox Christians are in villages or towns where they are a minority and need to support one another.
If you were in the a country where there was no OO Church but there was an EO Church which welcomed you then it would seem to me to be appropriate for you to worship there, and if you were allowed communion while remaining Coptic Orthodox then that would be a blessing. As always you should get the advice of your own FOC. And there is perhaps a difference between visiting a place just for a short trip and actually being in a place for a long time without an OO community nearby.
Even in this circumstance your own (and all of us) example and witness of living a devout Orthodox life before an EO priest and congregation are themselves helping to deal with the misunderstandings which exist, even if you say nothing. Your example will make it easier for the next OO who comes along to be welcomed.
Can I ask whereabouts you are?
In Christ
Deacon Peter
God bless
Hey don't know if anyone mentioned this before, but just to be clear: it's EO and OO or something, but not versus... lol
God bless
It was me!
:)
And I already have bought a ticket for this match... ;)
[quote author=Godislove260 link=topic=7626.msg100668#msg100668 date=1236038603]
Hey don't know if anyone mentioned this before, but just to be clear: it's EO and OO or something, but not versus... lol
God bless
It was me!
:)
And I already have bought a ticket for this match... ;)
Haha, I'm so sorry :s
I wasn't sure, but wanted to stress it once again... :D
God bless
Hi guys! Check out this website which is very good as a reference concerning OO and EO unity: http://www.orthodoxunity.org/ . May we come closer to God during this Great Lent as a family in Christ!
I would like to draw everyone's attention to the article of father John Romanides
"One Physis or Hypostasis of God the Logos Incarnate"
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/article06.php
just one extract from the discussion that follows the article:
Father John Romanides
" We must be very clear about the fact that the Chalcedonians means two ousiai when they speak of two physeis after the union, whereas the non-Chalcedonians, as pointed out very clearly by Father Samuel's paper also, do not mean one ousia when they speak of one physis after the union.
....
Therefore, Christ being in two ousiai could only mean that our Lord, the Only-Begotten Son of God, exists in two concrete, yet undefinable and perfect and complete realities, each of which is by nature proper to Himself and distinguishable in the union in thought alone. The term in two natures is of Latin provenance and was translated by the Cappadocian oriented Fathers of Chalcedon by the phrase in two physeis. Under more normal conditions the Alexandrians might have accepted the term in their own theological language as in two ousiai. It is only in this anti-Eutychian sense that the non-Chalcedonians must understand the term in two physeis whose only intent is to preclude one ousia after the union.
"
Here is a interesting video uploaded by a guy from Serbia (it wasn't me :)) some 2 years ago. This video has been viewed for more than 130,000 times...
I have to say that at best it is based on many misunderstandings, and at worse displays terrible scholarship.
I am not at all sure that Mount Athos is the theological centre of the EO, it may be considered the spiritual centre. But the most important theological writers of the EO in modern times do not seem to me to be on Athos.
I think there is more that we OO need to do, but in the end if the EO do not wish to move towards reconciliation then that will be something they will be judged for.
Father Peter