Christendom lost one of its stalwart patriarchs yesterday. Pope Shenouda III of Africa died after a long and productive life. He was a rock to his people, who are suffering terribly. He suffered with them and the outpouring of grief is palpable. In my OCA parish our priest made the announcment and likened him to Moses. I think this was an apt analogy.
May his memory be eternal!
Source: BBC News
Thousands mourn Egypt’s Coptic Pope Shenouda III
Tens of thousands of Egyptian Coptic Christians have held an overnight vigil in Cairo to mourn the death of their spiritual leader, Pope Shenouda III.
Many wept as they prayed for the pope outside the city’s main cathedral.
The vigil was followed by a Sunday morning Mass, with the dead pope’s body sat in the papal chair dressed in ceremonial robes.
He died at the age of 88 on Saturday, after reportedly suffering from cancer. He led the Church for four decades.
Coptic Christians make up 10% of Egypt’s population of 80 million, making them the Middle East’s largest Christian minority.
After attacks on Coptic Christians in recent years, Pope Shenouda had urged officials to do more to address the community’s concerns.
[…]
Read more at BBC News.
All Saints Church in Chicago served the Trisagion yesterday for Pope Shenouda.
Various reports indicate this was pretty much the case throughout the Antiochian Archdiocese.
Fr. Patrick, I am surprised to hear that Trisagions have been offered for Pope Shenouda since the Antiochian guidelines for commemorations specifically state:
“(5.) The Trisagion Prayers of Mercy and Funeral Service may only be
served for the repose of the souls of Orthodox Christians.”
http://www.antiochian.org/sites/antiochian.org/files/Commemorations_during_Divine_Services.pdf
We should certainly pray sincerely for the salvation of all, and I too will pray for the repose of the soul of Pope Shenouda, but to commemorate him as though he was a member of the Orthodox Church is to trample upon the Orthodox faith and lead many people astray.
Surely you would agree that we must not sacrifice the souls of those who are living, in our prayers for the souls of the reposed.
Respectfully,
Jason
I agree, Jason. I hope these trisagions were offered as a one-time exception to the rule out of mercy, rather than because of the common, but misguided and thoroughly incorrect, thinking that the Coptic Christian faith is Orthodox.
I should mention that I think it is fitting to offer prayers for God’s mercy on all of the Christians of Egypt, and for the soul of Pope Shenouda, but to me this is no different than doing the same for the Roman Pope, a non-Orthodox king or queen, the Challenger and Columbia astronauts, the women and children killed and maimed by abortion, massacre victims, and so forth.
It should be up to bishops and/or priests whether they want to offer these prayers privately only, or have Trisagion prayers of mercy in the church. But if they limit something to Orthodox Christians, they should not randomly apply it.
May God have mercy on the soul of Pope Shenouda, and protect the Christians of Egypt from harm.
Helga, I agree that we should pray privately for Pope Shenouda, for all of the Copts, and for the salvation of everyone.
Regarding the liturgical prayers, such as the Trisagion service, which are to be said only for Orthodox Christians who have reposed in the faith, St. Joseph of Optina said:
“if the Orthodox Church were in fact to allow [public prayers in Church for the non-Orthodox], she would inevitably cause very great harm and an abyss of evil to Orthodoxy. Let us consider, for example: Are many Orthodox Christians firm in the faith which they confess? Do not the greater portion of them have something of a weak faith, like a tiny spark which might be extinguished at any moment? And if such people were to hear in Orthodox churches the commemoration for the health or repose of Roman Catholics and Protestants [and other non-Orthodox] would they not quickly come to the conclusion that it must be that it is all the same no matter what you believe? And by this there would be even more and more frequent apostasy from the Orthodox Church, if not formally, then at least in spirit. And this would be the greatest woe.”
Today there are many enemies of the Church. Among them are a whole host of schismatic groups who call themselves “True” or “Genuine” Orthodox, and claim that the Orthodox Patriarchates have all fallen into heresy and no longer can tell the difference between truth and falsehood. They say that the Orthodox Patriarchates have fallen into the “heresy of Ecumenism” and no longer believe in the Nicene Creed that says there is “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” Sadly, by such an act of “love” (what kind of “love” betrays the truth?) on the part of these Antiochian clergy toward Pope Shenouda, many will consider that perhaps the schismatics are right, and the Antiochians no longer care about the Nicene Creed, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, or the countless Fathers that spoke against the Monophysite heresy.
Jason, you are absolutely correct. Whenever I write out my prayer list as I attend church services at the nearby monastery, I have to distinguish between Orthodox and non-Orthodox usually with two separate lists. The non-Orthodox names do not go into the altar, the nuns pray for them outside the altar. If I asked for prayers for Pope Shenouda or the Pope of Rome, then I would have to place them on the non-Orthodox list. The reasons for what we should and should not do as Orthodox Christians are rather clear and we should not deviate. For instance when I hear the anathemas on The Sunday of Orthodoxy, I realize that many of those who our ecumenist leaders are wooing are ‘really’ heretics and the anathemas pertain to them ‘unless they change their beliefs and practices.’
Jacksson remarks, “I have to distinguish between Orthodox and non-Orthodox usually with two separate lists. ”
Doubtless, this arrangement helps them keep things sorted out up in heaven.
This reminds me of the joke that has a lesson I agree with:
St. Peter was giving a tour of heaven to a man who just died. In one room were the Protestants who were shouting our “Amen and amen!” all over. “Works for me,” responded the man.
In the next room were the Catholics genuflecting time and and again. “This works too,” said the man.
In the third room were the Orthodox making the sign of the cross and chanting “Kyrie Eleison.” “This sounds good,” the man replied. “I’d like to go here.” “Shuss!” responded St. Peter lifting his finger to his lips. “They think they are the only ones here.”
Fr. Patrick,
Jacksson stated:
“Whenever I write out my prayer list as I attend church services at the nearby monastery, I have to distinguish between Orthodox and non-Orthodox usually with two separate lists.”
In response, you said:
“Doubtless, this arrangement helps them keep things sorted out up in heaven.”
Following Jacksson’s statement quoted above, he provided the context of his words when he added:
“The non-Orthodox names do not go into the altar, the nuns pray for them outside the altar.”
By your response (which seems to ridicule the idea of sending only the names of Orthodox Christians into the altar for commemoration), are you implying that you commemorate non-Orthodox during the proskomedia as well? This is what your response seems to indicate, but I don’t want to misunderstand you.
Jacksson clarifies:
“The non-Orthodox names do not go into the altar, the nuns pray for them outside the altar.”
Well, okay—-just for the sake of argument—let’s go with that distinction:
At all the parishes I know, the Trisagion is prayed outside the Royal Doors, not at the altar.
This is also true of the names mentioned during the Great Entrance.
When Pope Shenouda was reported to be sick, we prayed for him during the Great Entrance, like all the other sick people.
When he deceased, we prayed for him with a Trisagion.
I never commemorated Pope Shenouda during the diptychs.
Some of you guys need to take a walk and get some fresh air.
It’s a good idea to keep two separate lists. Orthodox Christians need more prayer.
It’s a good idea to keep two separate lists. Orthodox Christians need more prayer.
Helga mentions, “I should mention that I think it is fitting to offer prayers for God’s mercy on all of the Christians of Egypt, and for the soul of Pope Shenouda, but to me this is no different than doing the same for the Roman Pope . . . ”
Actually, dear, we did the Trisagion for Pope John Paul ii, too.
No doubt.
Questions though: Did you first clear these actions with your Mukhabarat handlers? Or perhaps the Despot took care of those details in advance?
Hercleides, I used to think like you do — until NATO (America) bombed Serbia. That shocked me into sobriety. (Serbia had always been a very trustworthy American ally.) Now I see that American meddling imposes great costs upon indingenous Christians who have lived in relative peace with Muslims for centuries. See:
Refugees International
See what Met. Hilarion of Volokolamsk says about the mid-east situation:
Back in the Reagan era, when foreign policy was more clearly thought out than it is today (although it had problems too), Jeanne Kirkpatrick drew an important distinction between dictators and totalitarians that today no one seems to understand anymore. See:
Dictatorships and Double Standards.
Assad is a dictator, not a totalitarian. Those who seek his overthrow are totalitarian.
The notion of an “Arab Spring” is a self-justifying Western invention for which indigenous Christians will pay the highest price. This is a vestige of liberal foreign policy highlighted by Carter and carried forward by the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration who never gave it up when they switched parties. There is no outcry under Obama of course since he is liberal (the only war a Democrat does not like is the one that a Republican starts).
Mme. Kirkpatrick’s noticing an obvious distinction may pass as high, rocket-science level thinking in some circles, but, I mean…..really? it is true that this obvious distinction applies to Assad and the Sunni fundamentalism that opposes him, but Kirkpatrick’s recognition of the equivalent of a section of the multiplication table is not helpful. As for the “clearly thought out” foreign policy of the Reagan era, does that apply to doing NOTHING about the bombing of the Marine Crops barracks and loss of life in Lebanon? To getting Khomeini to KEEP the American hostages in captivity for extra months in order not to give Carter a political point at home? To sending a Bible and a birthday cake to the Grand Ayatollah not long afterwards?
If those were Reagan “clear-thinking” days, what were the not-so-clear ones like, I wonder?
Yes, the bombing of the Marine barracks was the result of muddle-headed thinking. Reagan recognized the mistake immediately and withdrew.
Keeping the hostages in Iran is a left-wing talking point. What candidate has any influence over foreign policy, especially Reagan given that no one though he could win until three weeks before the election? More compelling is that Iran released the hostages almost to the day he got elected, a tacit recognition that they took him seriously.
Kirkpatrick’s distinction undid the conflation of dictatorships and totalitarian regimes which was the necessary result of Carter’s elevation of the defense of human rights as the centerpiece of American public foreign policy. Human rights abuses increased given Carter’s penchant for grandiose and moralistic statements over concrete substance. The end result of Kirkpatrick’s analysis and Reagan’s leadership was the collapse of Soviet Russia. It could never have happened under Carter, or any Democratic of that era given their ideological presuppositions.
Father Hans wrote, “Yes, the bombing of the Marine barracks was the result of muddle-headed thinking,” Whose muddle-headed thinking?
Father Hans followed that up with, “Reagan recognized the mistake immediately and withdrew.’ Recognized whose mistake/muddle-headed thinking, his own? Is “withdrew” a euphemism for doing nothing to respond to the Al Qaeda attack? Is that the reverse of “Stand Your Ground?” Is Father Hans saying the Marines had it coming because of Reagan’s muddle-headed thinking?
He followed that with, “Keeping the hostages in Iran is a left-wing talking point.” Is that a confession of right-wing panic, or what? I’d like to know if it is indeed Father Hans’s contention that representatives of Ronad Reagan did NOT contact government officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran asking them to delay, if possible, any release of the hostages until after the day of his election, if elected?
And I’d like to know if Father Hans has been a hostage himself, which might lend credibility to his assumption that (only?) three more weeks in captivity wasn’t that important to the hostages?
Kirkpatrick’s distinction undid WHAT conflation of dictatorships and totalitarian regimes by WHOM? How did Carter’s elevation of the defense of human rights result in “the conflation of dictatorships and totalitarian regimes?”
HOW was “Carter’s penchant for grandiose and moralistic statements over concrete (sic) substance” the cause of human rights abuses?
Here’s an astonishing declaration: “The end result of Kirkpatrick’s analysis and Reagan’s leadership was the collapse of Soviet Russia.” Is that a RIGHT “wing talking point or what? Ever hear of the expression, “post hoc ergo propter hoc?”
Why, didn’t the saintly Pope bring about the collapse of Soviet Russia?
Was Gorbachev, then, the passive victim of the super-superior strategies of Mme.Kirkpatrick and Ronald Reagan? My idea, and it’s only my talking point, as far as I know, is that the ruling establishment of the Soviet Union was powerless to resist the forces released in and on the Soviet Union by the so-called Information Revolution.
But it requires a lot less brain power to make the spectacular events of history the result of the decisions of this or that charismatic leader’s reflexes, than it does to think.
Your Grace, I’m not interested in taking any time to challenge your liberal ideas at this point.
I think we would both agree however that the fall of the Soviet Union would have been an impossibility under a Democratic president given the presuppositions of liberal ideology dominant at the time. If not, then there really is not much more I could add that would ever change your mind.
NOW Father Hans is “not interested in taking any time to challenge your liberal ideas at this point. ”
And he’s the one who wrote, “Keeping the hostages in Iran is a left-wing talking point.”
Challenge and then run when opposed, eh?
I think there’s an ethical question in there.
No, not running. Just unwilling to engage statements like:
…which reduces the discussion to two queens cackling. You might be at home there but I’m not. Men don’t speak to men this way and I refuse to do it.
That’s all I have to say on the matter.
Father Hans, was not replying to Bishop Tikhon’s question worth what it took out of you to write what you just wrote, in front of God and everybody?
Jane Rachel. The hostages could have been released three weeks earlier than they were, but the Iranians responded to requests from American Reaganites to hold off, since it was now pretty sure that Reagan would be elected. It seems to me that those Reaganites showed a remarkably cavalier attitude to the welfare of the hostages and that even a right winger could see that. Now some left-wingers with their terrifying “talking points” and others might have thought that Father Hans was an idiotic ideologue to have bought that defense of Reagan’s back=door deal with the Ayatollah, but i never could think such a thing. I preferred to think that Father Hans, whom I don’t know at all except by hearsay as Bishop Antoon’s idea of a house intellectual, might himself have been held hostage and could explain what he meant by stating that no one (!) thought that Reagan would be elected until three weeks before the election, as if they three weeks ruled out the possibility of a deal be asked for and granted. Father Hans’s choosing the figure of two queens cackling seems like the kind of tactic we all learned (and later abandoned) on an elementary school’s playground, not even on the relatively adult level of “the dozens” of which Diogenes, Jane Rachel and others gave us an example recently.
Now, was the birthday gift of a Bible and a chocolate cake to the Ayatollah a belated and a typically gosh-oh-golly-shucks Reaganish way of saying thank you for the earlier favor? Maybe someone else will man up and step up to answer the following, that Father Hans could not, and now will not answer:
” Kirkpatrick’s distinction undid WHAT conflation of dictatorships and totalitarian regimes by WHOM? How did Carter’s elevation of the defense of human rights result in “the conflation of dictatorships and totalitarian regimes?”
HOW was “Carter’s penchant for grandiose and moralistic statements over concrete (sic) substance” the CAUSE of human rights abuses?
Here’s an astonishing declaration: “The end result of Kirkpatrick’s analysis and Reagan’s leadership was the collapse of Soviet Russia.” Is that a RIGHT “wing talking point or what? Ever hear of the expression, “post hoc ergo propter hoc?”
Your Grace, there has never been any credible evidence that the Iranians “responded to Reaganites requests” to hold off for another three weeks. That entire canard was based on the original “October Surprise” in which then-VP nominee George H W Bush supposedly went to IraN in a jet and did the negotiating on a specific day in 1980 (I forget which). When Bush provided an alibi for that day, which showed that it would have been impossible to have been out of the country (let alone Iran), the entire case crumbled.
Even if we accept for the sake of argument that there was a “Reaganite request to hold off for another three weeks” we’re still talking about a date 5-6 weeks AFTER the election, when Reagan had already won the election. For the Democrat Party, the damage was already done. We forget that the hotages were released on Inauguration Day 1980.
Your Grace, the schoolyard analogy is fitting. I remember standing in the schoolyard as a kid, trying to figure out how to interact with people, and it’s still not easy.
“Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for “after this, therefore because of this,” is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states, “Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one.” It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation, or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which two things or events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown.
Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.”
This seems familiar…
Someone just said to me, “If you tell a lie often enough, everyone will believe it.” I don’t know if that has a Latin equivalent, but it’s true.
Regarding my point above about the “Arab Spring” as a fiction to justify the expansionist foreign policy of the American left:
Source: ZENIT News
Met. Philip and Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, who have been excoriated on these pages for defending the Syrian regime, appear to understand the Syrian political situation better than their critics.
Aside for one little quibble (the Serbs have not “always been a very trustworthy American ally”), I really liked your dissection of the current situation.
Carl,
I know that for you the issue of Ohrid and Macedonia is a painful one,but when have the Serbs been enemies of the US?I say this not just because I’m serving a Serbian parish(BTW,the deacon who assists me is Macedonian on his mother’s side and from Greek Macedonia at that),but because I see the Serbs as people under attack mainly because they are Orthodox.
I agree that SOME Serbs have been guilty of ethnic cleansing.But Western support of the Islamists in Kosovo has pushed many Czechs,Slovaks,and even Poles into the pro-Serbian camp.What occured in Kosovo yesterday is likely to occur in Macedonia tommorow if it is not already occuring today.
My being pro-Serb doesn’t mean I’m anti-Bulgarian or anti-Macedonian.I give the Bulgarians credit for defending their Jews during WW II even though political circumstances made them a Hitler ally.I believe Tsar Boris payed with his life for standing up to Hitler.
Father Patrick, my main objection is to the implication that Pope Shenouda was an “Orthodox Christian” who could be prayed for in that capacity without exception to that rule.
If it is Antiochian custom to make exception to the rule for a few isolated instances and allow occasional Trisagion prayers for departed heterodox, I am not going to presume to have a charism that has not been granted to me. However, I think it’s best to emphasize that this is being done out of love and pity for someone who died outside the Church, not reverence for these false religions. Popes Shenouda and John Paul II may have been virtuous in some respects, but that does not change the fact that they were both openly and knowingly opposed to Orthodoxy as well.
Every year, Metropolitan Jonah serves an abbreviated panikhida for the victims of abortion, but if memory serves, it’s very short and done outside the Capitol building, as a witness to the value of the women and children who are killed, not a blanket statement that individual faith doesn’t matter.
Helga is concerned that: “Popes Shenouda and John Paul II may have been virtuous in some respects, but that does not change the fact that they were both openly and knowingly opposed to Orthodoxy as well.”
I hope we all know this, Helga.
If there were the slightest danger that this fact would be obscured by a prayer offered at the end of the Divine Liturgy, then pastoral discretion would indicate a different policy.
At All Saints, we normally offer prayers—during the Great Litany and during the Great Entrance, for a bunch of living people who are not Orthodox Christians. These include political figures I would rather die than vote for.
The original canon governing such prayers is explicit: “I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority.”
We observe this canon in all our Orthodox parishes every Sunday during the Divine Liturgy.
The canon does not say, “I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all Chalcedonian Christians, for Orthodox kings and all canonically approved people who are in authority.”
Fr. Patrick,
You said:
“The canon does not say, ‘I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all Chalcedonian Christians, for Orthodox kings and all canonically approved people who are in authority.'”
How is 1 Timothy 2:1 applicable to the subject we are discussing? The guidelines established by your own Archdiocese state that:
“(5.) The Trisagion Prayers of Mercy and Funeral Service may only be
served for the repose of the souls of Orthodox Christians.”
Was St. Paul speaking to St. Timothy specifically concerning the Trisagion prayers in 1 Tim 2:1? Certainly you do not disagree with your bishops concerning the Trisagion prayers solely on the basis of the private interpretation of a single verse?
There seems to be a kind of permanent disagreement over the answer to the question: Which is worse, to pray for too many people or not enough of them?
In childish terms, will St. Peter reproach us with: “You should NOT have prayed that Trisagion for Pope Shenouda!” or “Why didn’t you pray a trisagion for Pope Shenouda?” Then we can hold a frank and open discussion with Saint Peter and let him know what various ascetics said or did not say, and how important it is not to lose members because we are too careful or too lax.
It is not so cut and dry. The same source that you cited has the following provisions.
(3.) Non-Orthodox Christians (but not non-Christians) may be commemorated in the appropriate petitions of the Ektenia of Fervent Supplication at Vespers and of the Great Entrance at Divine Liturgy in the following manner.
(8.) On the prescribed Souls Saturdays, all of the Departed are commemorated by category rather than by individual names. On those days it is traditional for each family to offer a small bowl of kollyva (the size of a cereal or soup bowl) in remembrance of their own Departed.
(9.) On occasion, it is blessed to pray the Akathist for the Departed as a stand-alone service (most appropriately on a Friday evening or Saturday morning) in order to give your congregation opportunity to make general remembrance of all of the Departed — Orthodox Christians, non-Orthodox Christians, etc.
(10.) In the rare circumstance of no one being available or willing to perform the funeral for a non-Orthodox Christian, clergy may request of their Diocesan Bishop a blessing to bury the person using the special rite of burial for a non-Orthodox Christian as printed in the Euchologion.
(11.) For circumstances not addressed above, please make inquiry with your Diocesan Bishop.
Carl, the Antiochian guidelines do seem “cut and dry” regarding Trisagion prayers:
“(5.) The Trisagion Prayers of Mercy and Funeral Service may only be
served for the repose of the souls of Orthodox Christians.”
Fr. Patrick said that churches in the Antiochian Archdiocese said the Trisagion prayers for Pope Shenouda, seemingly recognizing him as a leader of the Orthodox Church.
The other provisions you have quoted from the guidelines do not apply to Trisagion prayers.
See number 11 above. Rules without exceptions are not good rules, thus a diocesan bishop has the right to apply any and all rules with discretion and discernment; that is one of the reasons why we have bishops and their deputies–priests. Also, have you considered the following:
– Sometimes the exceptions do prove and strengthen the rule. In this instance, the Trisagion Prayers were served for the leader of millions of Egyptian Copts, who are extremely distressed because they feel threatened by the resurgence of radical Islam in Egypt. Now, if you observe that the Trisagion Prayers are served for any heterodox Tom, Dick and Harriette, you would have an issue. Not in this case
– Pope Shenouda of blessed memory was a good Christian, albeit heterodox for now. He supported the talks with the Eastern Orthodox to resolve our separation, which seems to be solvable. Thus, he could be looked on, in a back from the future fashion, as one of the founders of our future unity. To rigidly hold onto the current separation, especially on the occasion of his passing, seems to be too rigid, to the point of heartlessness.
Carl, regarding #11, do you know if Met Philip or any of the other Antiochian bishops instructed, or gave formal permission to, the clergy to perform the Trisagion for Pope Shenouda?
Jason, can’t say about Met. Philip, but my bishop did not give any approval not was Pope Shenouda’s death announced in any official way. We never prayer the Trisagion in public for non-Orthodox although prayers are offered for “the servants of God” at the end of the Great Entrance. The issue of praying the Trisagion for non-Orthodox was looked at some years ago because of the number of converts we have. It was decided that it could not be done.
Privately, we can pray for anyone we wish and should do so.
Thank you Michael, this is reassuring.
It would be nice to think that Fr. Patrick is all alone in misusing the Trisagion prayers to commemorate the non-Orthodox, but after he admitted to commemorating Pope Shenouda in these prayers, he said that this was “pretty much the case throughout the Antiochian Archdiocese.” Fr. Patrick hasn’t clarified that first statement in subsequent posts, which would indicate either:
1) Throughout the Antiochian Archdiocese, clergy commemorate departed non-Orthodox in the Trisagion prayers, or
2) Throughout the Antiochian Archdiocese, clergy believe that the Coptic Church is Orthodox and part of the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”
Perhaps Fr. Patrick will further clarify?
Oh, isn’t this enough? Shouldn’t we first of all settle the matter of “cut and dried?” (two past participles) versus Kraeff and others’ “cut and dry” (a past participle and an adjective)?
Makes one want to cut and run because it gives one the pip!
Here’s a question: Can a heretic be a ‘good Chrisitan’? or are Bishop Tikon (retired) and others saying that the Coptics are not heretical and that the anathema’s of Chalcedon were a great mistake? Do they have the authority to make those decisions?
Nobody can be a “Chrisitan.” I don’t even know what that is! Who is Bishop “Tikon” and where did he write that Coptics (sic) are not heretics? And what is it that the anathemas had at Chalcedon?
And does WHO have the authority to make WHAT decisions? Heretics? “Coptics?” Is voicing an opinion deciding anything? NOW I see how someone could consider the foreign policy of the Reagan area to be “clear!” I had no idea of the extent of the possibilities in the other direction!!
To my knowledge, Metropolitan Philip did not instruct his clergy to serve a Trisagion for the deceased Coptic Pope. It is correct that we Antiochians do not serve the Trisagion for non Orthodox. I did not even serve one for my mother and father. The Trisagion and Funereal service are reserved for Orthodox Christians. There is another service that can be used with the permission of one’s bishop for the burial of non-Orthodox. It is found in the Book of Needs published by St. Tikhon’s. However, in my private prayers, I certainly do pray for my non Orthodox family.
However, one thing struck me as I prayed the Anaphora this morning. We do pray for our Fathers. I realize that originally the text was used in monasteries and meant our spiritual fathers. However, in the present context, am I not praying for my father, and presumably for my mother during the Anaphora?. We pray for “our fathers and brothers absent from among us” during Little Compline and several other services. My father and brother were not Orthodox. That being case, for whom am I praying? . We pray for the whole world, for our city, etc. This would include non Orthodox.
It is not really correct to call the Non-Chalcedonians Monophysites. They are Miaphysites. The distinction is difficult to understand and is best left up to competent theologians. The problem is that they reject Chalcedon and the councils that followed and are in schism from the Church. They also commemorate as saints theologians considered heretics by the Church. There have been discussions, but they have not yet born fruit. They are the closest of all other groups of Christians to Orthodox.
We should remember that Chalcedon was not the last word of the Church on the subject of the two natures of Christ. The Fifth Council, The Constantinople II in 553, clarified the matter by declaring that Chalcedon must be interpreted in conformity with the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who is the chief authority on Christology for the Non-Chalcedonian Churches. On that basis it would seem that we share a common Christology. However, that is not ours to judge. That judgment must be made by the consensus of the Church through the agreement of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches.
Without the clarifications of the Fifth Council, it is possible to claim to adhere to Chalcedon and teach a Nestorian like Christology. In his Institutes, Calvin affirms his acceptance of Chalcedon and then discusses the two natures of Christ in a very Nestorian like manner. Because they reject the title Theotokos for Mary, I believe that most Protestants are really Nestorians. Through their non Sacramental practices and rejection of the sanctification of matter, Protestants are more Nestorian than Orhthodox. They also reject icons partially because they do not understand that the human nature of Christ was deified by its union with His divine nature. Certainly, liberal Protestants who reject the Virgin Birth are really Nestorian. Paul Tillich, who had a great deal of influence in the development of modern American Protestant theology, openly identified himself as a Nestorian. Like Nestorius, the liberal Protestants treat Christ as an inspired man, not God incarnate.
Archpriest John Morris
Thank you Father John.
Thank you, Fr. John, for these comments regarding the Trisagion prayers and the Non-Chalcedonians. I appreciated also your comments on Protestantism and Nestorianism.
Jason speculates, “Fr. Patrick said that churches in the Antiochian Archdiocese said the Trisagion prayers for Pope Shenouda, seemingly recognizing him as a leader of the Orthodox Church.”
If by the neologism “seemingly” Jason means “draws the inference,” his logic is flawed.
Praying for someone is very different from including that person in the diptychs.
How many “heads” of Orthodox jurisdictions here in America served trisagions or had them served
on the occasion of the death of President John F. Kennedy? Was he more Orthodox than Pope Shenouda? Did Archbishop Iakovos not serve one? Was there no Panikhida served at the Protection Cathedral in New York? How about other diocesan centers throughout the U.S? Did no Bishops in America serve panikhidas for FDR?
test
His Grace is correct,
Most Orthodox Christians pray regularly—including the Divine Liturgy—for “the President of our country and all those in civil authority.” They make this prayer without respect to the theological orthodoxy of those they are praying for.
Now, if it is legitimate, with respect to the canons of the Church, to reason “de maiore ad minus,” then there is not the slightest logical problem with praying for the eternal repose of a Coptic patriarch.
Notice, however, the way this discussion has declined: Concerned and laudatory comments about Pope Shenouda were very quickly replaced by a canonical discussion about liturgical prayer, then sank down to a semi-informed discussion about a theological problem of the early fifth century, and so on, down to the nether regions, where we finally reached the absolute bottom of the discourse: Heracleides’ entirely predictable insults to Metropolitan PHILIP.
Well, it took a while, but we finally got there.
Fr. Patrick,
It is good to defend your hierach, I appreciate and laud that defense (not that he really needs it) however, your statement;
is stupefying to me.
Are you saying that there is no such thing as a monophysite heresy or that if there is it no longer matters or that the Copts and others with whom they are in communion are not heretics? In those 14 words it seems to me you casually dismiss the faith that forms and undergirds both traditons. I expect more from you frankly.
If you are saying that the Copts and fellow communicants are not monophysites, what is your authority?
I would also say that praying for our earthly leaders is not anywhere near the same as parying for the repose of the soul of somone from a non-communing tradition whether one considers them heretics or not. We pray for our earthly leaders because we recognize that they lead us by the will of God without regard to their faith. We are praying that His will be done.
To pray for non-communicants in a liturgical setting validates the faith and teaching of the person. My diosesan bishop does not allow it in any case because of that.
You are conflating two entirely different categories.
Once again, if we can pray for Pope Shenouda, why cannot the same grace and mercy be extended to my parents and the parents of every Orthodox convert? Is it only allowed if people are famous and worldly important? Why not have open communion? The list could go on and on. Are you really maintaining a philosophy of presentistic egalitarianism?
But, hey, what do I know. I’m just a semi-informed creature of the darkness. Thanks so much for letting me know that.
I hope you can enlighten me by really answering the questions I’ve asked instead of stooping to ad hominum insults.
“I’m just a semi-informed creature of the darkness.”
To be fully-formed like the Reverend Reardon, you’d need to have been educated at the following heretical (semi-heretical? I’m sure we’ll be set straight) institutions: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Louisville, KY), St. Anselm’s College (Rome) and The Pontifical Biblical Institute (Rome) followed by a stint at St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Seminary (South Canaan, PA) to give the appearance of being kosher… er, Orthodox.
Source: http://www.allsaintsorthodox.org/pastor/bio.php
I graduated from Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Chicago and completed a year of Clinical Pastoral Education with the Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society. I’ve also taken courses at Catholic Theological Union, Lutheran School of Theology – Chicago, North Park Seminary, and Bethany Seminary, and the St. Stephen’s Course of Studies. Many Orthodox Priests have similar kinds of resumes. Have we now become suspect? I hope not and I pray that we, and I, do not forget the season.
Fr John Chagnon
St. Paul, MN
PS A group of us went to the local Coptic Church today to express our condolences to the Priest and a parish hit hard by the news.
Fr. John, I call no one’s background into question. One of the reasons that I feel it so important to know why a particular belief is heretical is because I have been damaged by and seen others damaged by heretical teaching in places I was before becoming Orthodox. Surely anyone coming from the Episcopal tradition knows that too. We all come from somewhere. We all require the renewing of our minds and hearts. I know that God’s grace is sufficient to heal anything of which we repent.
I do not question Fr. Pat’s Orthodoxy at all nor should anyone else. I know what my diocesan bishop has said: there is a good reason we are not in communion with the Copts and others.
Personally I really dislike the current applelation of “non-Chalcedonian Orthodox”. Chalcedon is the defining statement of what is Orthodox and what is not Orthodox Christologically so the appellation is the ultimate oxymoron. In these illumned modern times we so easily shy away from saying anything that could be offensive about those not in communion with us. So unlike the Fathers that I have read. Clarity and steadfastness are necessary. In my experience theologocial fences tend to be made out of razor wire.
I can and do agree that Pope Shenouda was/is a courageous man of deep faith, because of that I am sure of Christ’s mercy for him. I can and do agree with mourning his loss with his spiritual children. I do not understand, however, the desire to personally decide that the theological differences between us make no difference. They certainly made a difference to him judging by his writings and his actions toward Dr. George Bebawi.
My initial post was a simple summary of those differences as I understood them because of the expressed confusion of another poster. I asked for correction if my understanding was faulty. No correction was given.
I seek clarity from those who feel that there is no difference or that the difference is insignificant and do not get any, just sarcastic dismissal, erudite for sure, but sarcastic nonetheless.
We did not, in our parish, include Pope Shenouda in the public prayers. Yet many of us have prayed for him and we try to keep good relations with the local Coptic Christians. I understand the formalities of the public prayers of the Church and I understand that in my jurisdiction, with its roots in the Middle East there is also a connection of the heart even if there is not always a connection in doctrine. If the Copts are not brothers and sisters with us in the formal sense of the word they are still important to us and we share the sorrows and struggles even of those we do not always agree with simply out of charity. If we are asked to pray for those who hate us we can surely pray for Pope Shenouda and the Copts who merely disagree with us. Although we chose not to include him in the public prayers my presumption is that Fr. Reardon probably had good grounds or permission to do what he did in the same vein as we have done memorial prayers for victims of 911 and so forth.
In my personal prayers I use a simple rule “Pray for them all, let God sort them out.” It seems to capture both the letter and the spirit of things,
On the other point, I browse through Monomakhos every so often but rarely comment. it seems to me like a place where the same people argue around in circles and some call each other names. That seems to destroy the benefits that would come with a Christian discussion of important issues. So mostly I just stay away. The attack on Fr. Reardon was just one such incident and so I chose to share my background to stand with Fr. Reardon. I’m not crazy about people attacking clerics just for the sake of it. As Priests we get used to it but it still hurts.
If i have offended anyone, please forgive.
Fr John Chagnon
St. Paul, MN
Father John said, “On the other point, I browse through Monomakhos every so often but rarely comment. it seems to me like a place where the same people argue around in circles and some call each other names. That seems to destroy the benefits that would come with a Christian discussion of important issues.” Is it the Touchstone forum where everybody is nice to each other and a lot of good, non-circular discussion of important issues gets done?
On this blog, important issues are discussed in the midst of a raucous cacophony. You have discredited this blog for some reason… hmmm… not for me to reason why. Things are said here, which have not been discussed freely anywhere else. Discussion is ongoing about important issues, truth keeps on being told in the midst of the fracas, horn-blowing and blustering, and have you read any of the recent discussions? There’s one very interesting discussion going on right now about the future of the OCA, a discussion in the midst of all the other discussions, which you have just dismissed with a priestly wave. (As far as priests being hurt, we are all hurt, and sometimes by priests. Though I understand your point on that, I wanted to point that out.)
Open, unedited and free discussion in a public forum means name calling and circular discussion will happen. It’s exceedingly difficult for people to admit they might have been wrong. No matter what you say, no matter how true it may be, if you can’t be wrong, the truth can’t be true. A lot of people (tens of thousands of people?) were wrong about Father Robert Kondratick, for example. Just one, small example. But since he can’t be innocent even though he is innocent, he is therefore not innocent, but guilty, because the Holy Synod said so, and the SIC has too many pages, so it can’t be false. That makes liars out of people who clearly are not lying, but hey, who cares? It’s written down! Ah. Sweet comfort.
Jane Rachel, I have no problem with open discussion on issues I just think there is a need for Christians to be Christians with each other even on line. If there is sin it needs to be confronted but with an eye towards forgiveness and restoration. If there are systems that are not working the critique should also provide a solution not simply a description of the problem or an emotional response. If people need to be called to account should it not be done with a kind of humility that recognizes we are all sinners? Should we debate the important issues without calling each other names or implying things we cannot possibly know about the person we are encountering? I think so.
Fr John Chagnon
St. Paul, MN
Father John, yes. Good idea.
I mean, except where stronger words are needed.
“Many Orthodox Priests have similar kinds of resumes. Have we now become suspect?”
Depends. To what degree does your education at heretical institutions inform (or deform) your teaching of Orthodoxy? Are you ‘squishy’ like Fr. Patrick?
Note that I am not necessarily saying your protestant education has produced the same results. In fact, the opposite may well be true. I say this because I know of an Antiochian parish where the Ethiopian Oriental Orthodox are communed without the priest batting an eyelash – and his education was strictly within the confines of an orthodox institution (Holy Cross). No doubt another fine example of Bp. Philip’s flagrant use of economia. Go figure.
Heracleides pontificates: “I know of an Antiochian parish where the Ethiopian Oriental Orthodox are communed without the priest batting an eyelash”
Just one parish?
I can name dozens.
Strict adherents to the Desert tradition, we Antiochians maintain constant eyelash control.
Fr. Patrick, the bottom line is that they should not be communed without having first the understanding that they are converting to Orthodoxy from the monophysite church. They should not be communed *because* they belong to the monophysite church.
Please do not argue that since we are just laypeople, we do not have the right to object to this evil practice. No priest or bishop has the right to profane the Eucharist.
Haha.. I appreciate the banter Reverend – you amply display your true nature (i.e. a pompous arse) for all to see much better than I could ever hope to illustrate graphically.
Herakleides–It is not right to call an Orthodox priest vulgar names. On the other hand, since you are not a priest, I suppose I could call you not only a pomopus arse, but also an utterly unredeemable jerk
I’m not sure about “squishy” but in the real world of serving a parish there can be an art to how the principles of the Orthodox Faith are applied in individual circumstances. There are times, for example, when these things are based on private information that others might not know and so what seems clear from outside the situation may not be so clear if all the details were known. There are other situations similar to this where what seems obvious may not be so. In my own experience I’ve never worked with Priests who make it up as they go along. All of the Priests I’ve served with in the Antiochian Archdiocese have the Bishop’s number on speed dial and regularly keep in touch.
Fr John Chagnon
St. Paul, MN
Herc, that’s more Orthodox education than some priests get.
That said, calling the discussion here about Chalcedon “semi-informed” is pretty ill-informed itself. Michael has been doing fantastic work here.
Helga, thank you. However, I do have to admit that I am no scholar. Fr. Pat is far more intelligent and learned in these matters than am I. Anything I write he is likely to think semi-informed. I just wish he would share his knowledge rather than his sarcasam.
Fr. Pat I do not mean to attack you or Met. Philip in any way. Please forgive me if I gave that impression.
I am a direct person. I expect the same directness in return, but scarcasm is just destructive.
Michael, you know more than you think you do. I tried, believe me, I tried very hard to march to the drumbeat of modern scholars who think this is all a big misunderstanding. But I think we understand each other perfectly when we recognize that this is an all-or-nothing deal. Either one is the Church and the other is outside, or neither is the Church at all.
This doesn’t mean we can’t be friendly and help each other, especially now that Copts in Egypt are in danger and Orthodox can help them by speaking up for them. However, it should mean that this “intercommunion” business must stop, as it is an abuse.
How do Copts, Armenians, etc., make the sign of the cross, 3 fingers “up” signifying the HT, & 2 “down” signifying the 2 undivided & unconfused natures of XC?
I don’t know about that, but I do know they do it left to right like the Catholics.
Michael Bauman asks, “If you are saying that the Copts and fellow communicants are not monophysites, what is your authority?”
The Copts themselves. They deny being Monophysites.
The Copts accuse us of being Nestorians. Does that make us Nestorians?
Father Patrick, I am not accusing you of anything. My very basic questions, direct and to the point:
1. By what authority; 2. If for Pope Shenouda, why not for everyone else?
Can you not see the confusion generated by such acts that are not done with clear and specific authority?
Again, if Met. Philip or some other ruling bishop had simply said that it was an act of economia and stated the reasons publically, all of the confusion would have been avoided. Instead we get a little bit of this, a little bit of that and it seems as if everyone is just on his own doing ‘theys own thing bro’.
If y’all would permit me, I believe that the Holy Spirit may be working here: that He is Who is enlightening prelates and clerics the world over to commemorate the late Coptic pope.
George, then why all of the scarasm, obsfucation, conflated logic? Why not simply say he is worthy of the honor and why he is worthy despite the differences?
Fr. Patrick,
When the Copts say that they are not “Monophysites” they mean that they do not follow the Christology of Eutyches. They do, however, follow the Christology of Dioscorus of Alexandria, whose theology, from an Orthodox perspective was heretical. If you look at historic objections to the theology of the anti-Chalcedonian churches— Sts. John of Damascus and Anastasius the Sinaite are good examples, and in a later generation Theodore Abu Qurra– they are not polemicizing against a Eutychian straw man, but rather are intent on pointing out the actual heresies of the anti-Chalcedonian authorities, especially Dioscorus and Severus of Antioch.
A lot of the tendency to accept anti-Chalcedonians as basically Orthodox amounts to putting the very real love, sympathy, and respect we should have for these churches ahead of a close study of the history of our differences. Really, it’s almost impossible to understand the reality of Coptic theology without engaging with their medieval Arabic writers such as the Awlad al-Assal and Severus ibn al-Muqaffa’– it’s these authors, rather than the Alexandrine Greek fathers, that most Coptic theology of the past few hundred years has been based on– until the 1950’s, Coptic theologians had only been reading Cyril and Athanasius through brief excerpts in Arabic florilegia– the crisis in their theology occasioned by the re-discovery of their Greek fathers in the 20th century has been well documented. If you have not read it, the best– and most sympathetic– account of the history of Coptic Christology available in English is Stephen Davis’ “Coptic Christology in Practice”.
In the early 2000’s, Pope Shenouda published an 8-part series of booklets against the concept of theosis, in which he characterized the notion in Islamic terms, as being “shirk” (associating the creature with the Creator). In these booklets, he put forward a variety of opinions that, from an Orthodox Christian perspective are wildly heretical– such as that we do not partake of divinity in the Eucharist and that there cannot be any kind of real, ontological communion between God and man. He grounded these heretical opinions in traditional, post-patristic, Coptic Christology. Without a thoroughgoing engagement with texts like these, which for the most part have not been translated into western languages, it’s impossible for one to have an informed opinion about the Orthodoxy or heterodoxy of Coptic theology. And, if you even spend ten minutes reading Pope Shenouda’s theological writings, his heresies are evident. A more polemical source to go to about this are the writings of George Bebawi, a theologian who was excommunicated from the Coptic Church for refusing to reject theosis, who is now a communicant in the Russian Orthodox Church.
That said, I am also troubled when Orthodox, trying to be more-traditional than tradition, insist on re-chrismating or even re-baptizing anti-Chalcedonian Christians. The Council in Trullo is very explicit that they only need to confess Orthodox faith (i.e., accept of the 7 councils) in order to be accepted into communion.
Samni, I think this is a very helpful post. Thanks.Apologies to Michael Bauman and others for my hard-headedness.
Samni, what you are saying about what Pope Shenouda’s writings seem to contradict the quotes I found and posted earlier. It still does not make a lot of sense to me. Did his writings differ from the teachings of the Coptic Church, so that his views on theosis were new, and heretical even within the Coptic Church? Did he explain his views on the Eucharist? I remember a quote from Dr. Bebawi, let me see if I can find it again. Here it is, from http://www.roadtoemmaus.net/back_issue_articles/RTE_38/With_the_Dessert_Fathers_of_Egypt.pdf
“Although we’ve achieved a great deal in unofficial dialogue, the present Coptic patriarch, Shenouda III, has attacked deification (theosis) as a Byzantine heresy, partly out of his fear of Islam, 6 so the official dialogue with the orthodox Church has not progressed. I hoped very much that the ecumenical dialogue would ease things, but in the unofficial dialogue with the Russian Church, Bishoi, the Secretary of the Coptic Synod, said that any teaching on participation in the divine nature is a heresy. Metropolitan [now Patriarch] Kyrill of the Moscow Patriarchate stood up and silenced him, but the real solution is that the Coptic clergy needs to study the Church fathers. In regard to the divine nature, we orthodox do not speak of participating in the divine essence, but in the divine energies. This is from the Epistles, II Peter 1:3-4 where the apostle says, “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature…” 6 Ed. note: Because Islam holds that man and God are completely separate as creator and creature, while orthodoxy believes that man is created in the image and likeness of God and are united in Christ, a move by the Coptic Church towards a more patristic view could further imperil their standing with the Muslim-dominated Egyptian government.”
Samni! would you be able shed more light on this?
Also, here is what I posted earlier from Metropolitan Bishoy. Would you comment on it as well? Thanks.
Okay, so this is a pretty complicated issue. I read Pope Shenouda’s anti-theosis writings a few years back in Arabic (they are not available in English— I suspect that if they were available in a western language it would be deeply embarrassing for the Coptic Church and immediately torpedo any ecumenical dialogue) , in a graduate seminar on Coptic Christology. His understanding of the Eucharist as explicitly not entailing partaking of Christ’s divinity is a major recurring theme in these pamphlets, as is the accusation that the Orthodox understanding of theosis amounts to “shirk”. If you want a detailed discussion to the background of this issue, I’d go to the final chapter of Davis’ book….
But, the question of whether or not Pope Shenouda’s theology is heretical from a Coptic point of view is an open question, although the excommunication of George Bebawi amounted to a rejection of the Orthodox understanding of theosis among the Copts. Coptic Christology has been in a serious state of flux since the 1950’s, when the Coptic Church started sending students to the University of Athens to study the Alexandrine Fathers in the original Greek. In that environment (as also with a later generation of Coptic scholars who studied in western universities, like George Bebawi), many came to understand Cyrill and Athanasius in terms that put them much closer to Orthodoxy than to the kind of Coptic theology that developed in the Middle Ages. Additionally, Pope Shenouda strenuously argued against arguments for theosis made by Fr. Matthew the Poor and the monks of the Monastery of St. Macarius, who had come to be influenced strongly by Orthodox spirituality and the doctrine of theosis.
So, in Pope Shenouda’s theology, really three factors are at play:
1) A theology heavily, heavily influenced by Islam. He uses markedly Islamic language (“shirk” and “tahrif”) to describe the understanding of theosis among his opponents. His basic theological concern was to maintain the absolute transcendence of God according to the Islamic understanding: there can be no ontological communion between God and man, except (in a certain sense) in Christ Himself, thus we cannot share in Christ’s divinity or be divinized by it. For Pope Shenouda, to partake of the divine nature would mean to have one’s human nature (and will and activity) synthesized with the divine nature, just as happened with Christ according to his understanding of the incarnation.
2) Lacking both St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Gregory Palamas, the Copts do not have a vocabulary for talking about ways that man can be united to God that does not involve creating a synthesis on the level of nature. That is, lacking St. Gregory Palamas, they cannot speak of uniting to God on the level of His energies. Because their Christology requires the creation of a single, synthetic, theanthropic nature in Christ, and also a single, synthetic will (against the teaching of St. Maximus the Confessor– Pope Shenouda, in his book “The Nature of Christ” is explicitly monothelite and monergist), they are unable to conceive of a unity between man and God that does not result in a single nature and a single will. This is why Metropolitan Bishoy can only conceive of theosis in ethical terms and by analogy– his tradition simply lacks the conceptual framework for anything deeper.
3) Perhaps even before the Islamic conquest, but certainly within a century or two after it, the Copts stopped reading Cyrill and Athanasius’ complete texts. Instead, they only had polemical florilegia that only focused on instances of them using “one nature” language, but did not include the reasons for their Christologies, so concisely expressed in Athanasius’ oft-quoted statement about theosis, which Met. Bishoy sought to modify or even reject. Medieval Coptic theology, which forms the basis for most modern Coptic theology, was often monophysite in the crassest terms— I helped to edit an 11th century anti-Chalcedonian text in Arabic, which will be published soon in Lebanon, that speaks of the incarnation in terms of the Holy Spirit changing into a body in the way that water turns to ice!
An interesting take on Coptic theology and the ongoing problems in the dialogue between the Orthodox and the anti-Chalcedonians can be found in the writings of Minas Monir, a young Copt who converted to Orthodoxy out of theological conviction:
http://www.pravmir.com/article_1052.html
http://www.pravmir.com/article_946.html
Samni!, NOW I am beginning to understand. It’s what I was looking for. I am so glad and relieved to read it.
We do not get to say, “WE understand it and accept it, but THEY, on the other hand, even though they also understand it, yet, THEY reject it. How wrong of them!”
We do get to say, “It’s a good thing ‘Coptic Christology has been in a serious state of flux since the 1950′s, when the Coptic Church started sending students to the University of Athens to study the Alexandrine Fathers in the original Greek.”
Thanks again.
Samn!, I thank you for making such a valuable contribution to this thread. I found Minas’ story and the interview with Dr. George Bebawi both to both be very enlightening and informative when I first read these accounts, and your words have corroborated many things they have said while offering valuable additional information as well.
I wonder if the Orthodox and the Monophysites understood each other much better at the time of Chalcedon than they do today?
Samni!, reading your post more carefully, I see you did try to address some of these questions I asked. At the same time, I can hardly believe there would be a complete rejection of theosis, as if the Eucharist has no meaning at all. I am having a hard time reconciling this with what Metropolitan Bishoy wrote. If it is true that there was a complete rejection of theosis and the Eucharist, as you wrote, “such as that we do not partake of divinity in the Eucharist and that there cannot be any kind of real, ontological communion between God and man,” then what do they believe they are partaking of in the Eucharist, and what kind of communion do they believe there is between God and Man?
There is a tendency in our American/’Western mindset to hear one statement taken out of context and pass immediate judgment without learning more. I appreciate your post, which gives more information and background I couldn’t find online.
Here is why I am still bothered by this talk about Pope Shenouda. Based on his life, we know he was not an “evil” man. He wouldn’t have simply gone round the bend, would he? Wouldn’t he have been thinking carefully about what he was writing, and wouldn’t he have known it was controversial? And yet, he did not change his writings. If he was a “condemned heretic” who rejected the most wondrous truth in the universe, how are we to think about him? There must be more to it than that.
Thanks again.
Okay, just read your post above. Good to go!
I doubt very many heretics have been evil men in the way I think you mean here. Most condemned heretics were most likely men who genuinely loved the Church and put forward their erroneous opinions as a misguided expression of that love, zeal without understanding and all that.
Here is a paragraph I’ve translated from one of Pope Shenouda’s writings against theosis, regarding the Eucharist:
So for him, in the Eucharist, one partakes of the body of Christ, but not His divinity. Likewise, for Met. Bishoy in the passage you quoted, any acceptable sense of theosis cannot be ontological but rather must be limited to an analogy– for him, theosis is just coming to resemble God on an ethical level….
Samn!, I was about to flee this joint again in disgust, until these lucid and profoundly insightful — and timely — posts of yours appeared. A few correspondents consistently provide substantive and meaningful content (I think they know who they are), but I don’t recall ever reading anything here that was quite so astute and theologically informed. You’ve seized the Χρόνος with both hands and I’d like to congratulate you for that. Lucid, and timely indeed. I’m very grateful for your humility, too.
I’m actually rather excited by your contributions. So much partisan posturing and ideological fraudulence on this blog, so much tiresome babble — and then you show up. It’s almost miraculous. I’d like to ask you many questions, but I’ll start out with this one for now: Are you aware of any pronouncements or better yet writings by the late Pope Shenouda (an interesting choice of names, incidentally . . .) on the subjects of Dioscorus and Severus as men and “theologians”? If so, can you tell us anything about his views with respect to these two men, and/or point us to sources in competent English translation from the Arabic? I’d be very grateful.
Samn!, this is a very alarming development:
Both Dioscorus and Severus of Antioch are considered to be saints of the Coptic Church, as is Timothy Aelurus. In Ethiopia especially, every bus I’ve been on has an icon of the “Three Alexandrine Fathers” Athanasius, Cyrill, and Dioscorus. Severus, however, seems to have been much more influential in the West Syrian Church, as his writings are for the most part now only available in Syriac. Likewise, the same problem that happened with Cyrill and Athanasius, that they came to be read among the Copts only in florilegia, is also true of Dioscorus. I can’t find offhand an English text were Pope Shenouda discusses either Dioscorus or Severus, but the many Coptic churches and icons dedicated them testify to their symbolic importance for the Copts.
Well, thank you Mike. I can’t tell you how gratified I am that you decided to continue to grace us peasants with the honor of your presence. Maybe we canall learn something.
George, Mike’s posts can be interesting at times, but he does seem to fit this bill:
snob (snb)
n.
1. One who tends to patronize, rebuff, or ignore people regarded as social inferiors and imitate, admire, or seek association with people regarded as social superiors.
2. One who affects an offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of taste or intellect.
Jason inquires, “Surely you would agree that we must not sacrifice the souls of those who are living, in our prayers for the souls of the reposed.”
I hope I would too, Jason, if I had any idea what is meant by “sacrifice the souls.”
Father Patrick, in the preceding sentence I had said,
“We should certainly pray sincerely for the salvation of all, and I too will pray for the repose of the soul of Pope Shenouda, but to commemorate him as though he was a member of the Orthodox Church is to trample upon the Orthodox faith and lead many people astray.”
It should have been clear that by “sacrifice the souls of those who are living” I was referring to people being led astray by the apparent declaration that Pope Shenouda was a leader of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
I quoted the guidelines of your Archdiocese regarding the Trisagion prayers (I’m not sure why you aren’t addressing these guidelines in your responses), and from these guidelines (which seem to express the common understanding of all Orthodox churches), it is easy to see how your inclusion of Pope Shenouda in the Trisagion prayers could be misunderstood as a clear declaration that the Copts are part of the Orthodox Church. If people leave Orthodoxy and embrace heresy (or simply go into schism by joining one of the many self-proclaimed “True” or “Genuine” Orthodox group who do not hesitate to declare as “heretics” those whom the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils declared to be “heretics”), then by such prayers you very well could be sacrificing the souls of the living in your prayers for the souls of the departed.
I hope my messages do not come across as an “attack” on Fr. Patrick or anyone else. I am seeking to clarify rather than to condemn. If I seem a bit sensitive regarding this issue, it is because I know of many people who have left the Orthodox Church precisely because of such gestures and words which give the impression that Orthodox clergy and bishops no longer follow the Ecumenical Councils, no longer follow the Fathers, and no longer clearly distinguish between truth and heresy. Many do not realize how many people are losing their faith and falling away on account of ecclesiological relativism.
Why are the last nazi war criminals hiding in Syria? Ohlig & Puim show Islamic extremism came from Syriac monophysates, products of Chrysustolm trying to consummate the Channukah crimes of his Seleucid forefathers. (“Questioning is the subversion of faith” Homily I on I Timothy I- Such was the dark mind that led Justinian to abolish the universities and Olympics and bring on the palgues.) Nesselrode sent Porphy Uspensky to de-Hellenize the Antiochians which led to Michel Aflaq founding the Nazi Ba’ath party which is why Putin hid Saddam’s WMD in Syria! The Ochrafux church is a war criminal organization which must be prosecuted!
George, are you sure George Comney’s note is within proper parameters for “Monomakhos?”
Is it true that absinthe is now legal? Doesn’t it destroy brain cells?
A great, great leader and Christian. He also had a good sense of humor. On his first visit to Los Angeles, back, as I recall, in the 80s. There was a big banquet here in L.A. which I got to attend. it started a little late. When the main characters finally arrived, Mayor Bradley was the first to speak, and he apologized for their lateness. He said that as they came down in the elevator he realized that he was going to be late and he said he used to confidently say, as if it were unique, “Sorry, but I was on black time.” But, he continued, “After I became mayor, I realized that there is also a Latino Time, and an Arab time, and a Persian time, and so forth, so I’ve stopped saying that.”
When it came time for Pope Shenouda to speak, he said he appreciated Mayor Bradley’s remarks about time very much. He said another seemingly ubiquitous saying was “Time is gold”, in almost all languages. “But,” he said, “in Egypt, time is the MUD!”
I was always under the impression that the Coptic Church was Orthodox and yet many of you are saying that they are not. Why are they considered non Orthodox. According to this article http://orthodoxwiki.org/Church_of_Alexandria_(Coptic) it appears to me that they are Orthodox.
They split from the Orthodox after the Council of Chalcedon (or from their point of view continued the true faith while we departed from it). There are a lot of folks who say that the differences are merely semantic, but we are still not in communion with one another. Other knowledgeable folks say they are monophysites. They don’t like that applelation. They think the Chalcedonian formula on Christ’s two natures is a dualistic heresy. Some of the folks they accept as saints we say are heretics and they do not accept any of the councils 4-7 (I believe).
Sporadic reunion talks have been going on for decades but have not gone particularly well.
I think I simply stated the major convergences, if not, please, someone correct me.
It is way beyond my pay grade to say one way or t’other on the controversies. However they are still official heretics, but with an asteric and looked upon warmly by many for their devotion and courage under centuries of Islamic fire. Done a site better I think than the EP.
Dear Michael,
I learned of the Monophysite heresy from Fr.Alexander Schmemann’s book,”Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy” which our instructor,V.Rev. Daniel Donlick,used for our class during my studies at St.Tikhon’s circa 1974.
I cannot claim to have the high education that many other priests who post here have.I’ve heard many people in the know,including at least one bishop,say that “most Monophysites aren’t really Monophysites.”I understand(someone please correct me if I err)that Pope Shenouda claimed that “once the Divine and Human Essences of Christ were joined together,they could never be seperated.”
Now I may be simple-minded,but how can we place any limitations on GOD?If God could part the Red Sea,if he could cure the blind,heal the paralytic,raise the dead,who is to say that Christ’s two natures couldn’t remain seperate?
If the Two Natures are merged as one,couldn’t one come to the conclusion that Our Lord’ Sufferings upon the Cross were a type of play-acting? Yet, we understand that HE suffered as a man,upon the Cross,HE thirsted,HE bled.
That being said,I know that ALL Christians have suffered and do suffer under Militant Islam.ALL types of Christians likewise suffered under the Communist yoke.
Interesting commentary, Father. In the same vein, probably most Orthodox today wouldn’t recognize or understand the various differences in the reasons why seemingly similar churches have split apart from the original groupings. For instanse, early on, Alexandria was not believing the same as Rome or even a little later in time, Constantinople; there were always belief problems. The various councils were gathered to try to keep all of the far flung Orthodox on the same page. Possibly if there had been an internet in those days, the problems would/could have been ironed out with the exceptions of those in power, bishops, patriarchs, popes, etc, who simply wanted to rule and control (as they still do). The bottom line is always “keeping the commandments of Christ” for all who profess Him, not doing a dogmatic study about what we believe .
As far as the two natures, if they were not to be joined then they wouldn’t have been joined, then to be separated later, so I can’t agree with Pope Shenouda. From what I read in scripture, Christ had two natures, and He displayed both of them. Anyway, the Coptic Pope should now know the correct answer to the problem. And my question is regarding your post, what is the reasoning behind those who say that most monophysites are not really monophysites?
As an aside, years ago some one told me that Thomas Aquinas toward the very end of his life had an experience in the altar that caused him to stop writing and talking (from what I gathered, an experience of uncreated grace – the divine light). Then recently, in reading Orthodox Spirituality by Fr. Dumitru Staniloae, I ran across a his comment regarding Aquinas who “suffered a severe breakdown at the end of his life, due to the fact that everything that he had written now seemed unsatisfactory. (Introduction, P51)” (perhaps as a result of his experience?). I mention this because it is possible that at the closing days and moments of a life such as Pope Shenouda, the possibility exists that God opened his eyes to the truth and previous statements he made in error were corrected.
I learned about the Monophysite heresy when I was relatively new to the Church and got the job of preparing a timeline of the Church for a weekend on the History of the Chruch my parish put together.
One of the things that came out of that adventure, which I still maintain to this day, is that we need to know the heresies and why they are heresies. We need to know this not to go on heresy hunting expeditions to rid the Church of them, but so that we can recognize the heretical beliefs to which we are prone in our own lives. Heresies do not go away just because the Church recognizes them. If we are to remain relatively free of them in our own life, we must be able to recognize them when they come into our minds so that we may keep them from our hearts.
It is a sad thing when different beliefs keep us apart, but the cure for that is not to delcare all belief equal. IMO that is a practice that could easily be defined as a heresy-egalitarianism. It leads to such ridiculous beliefs that there is no such thing as sin and therefore all are saved–universalism. Or such equally perverse ideas that its not Christian to call anyone to repentance which infects the propaganda of those who want to normalize homosexuality.
However, the most pervasive type of heresy we face these days is dualism. It comes in so many forms and presents in such seductive ways it is really difficult to avoid.
Most catechesis of which I am aware makes little mention of heresy or why understanding the nature of heresy is so important. While such discussions can get bogged down into mind numbing digressions, they don’t have to. Doctrine is not and should not be separated from our lives (another effect of a dualistic mentality IMO). I made a little ‘hersey quiz’ that I put on a Geo-Safari device. It was a matching quiz. I presented 10 statements about God from different heresies. The task was to match the statement with the hersey. For instance the Arian statement: “There was a time when Christ was not”.
Not many who attempted the quiz passed it the first time round. Without the study I did, I would not have either.
Oh well, a digression from the thead (perhaps) so please forgive me.
They pronounce Anathema on our saints and we pronounce anathema on their saints. Never the twain will meet. Actually, the anathemas of Orthodox Sunday convince me that we will never come together with Rome; some of the dogmatic anathemas specifically would prohibit that happening.
There are many good articles here explaining the Orthodox view of the Copts and other Non-Chalcedonians:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.aspx
Regarding Pope Shenouda, here is a good commentary on his book entitled “On the Nature of Christ” by a seminarian of St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Seminary:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/Coptic-christology-a-commentary.pdf
The article below provides a good, comprehensive, but not too lengthy, explanation as to why the Copts and other Non-Chalcedonians are not Orthodox:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_share.aspx
The articles above cover the basic issues, but there are others as well. Below is an interesting interview with a former member of the Coptic Church, Dr. George Bebawi, entitled “With the Desert Fathers of Egypt: The Coptic Church Today”. Dr. George was very close to the Coptic Patriarch Kyrillos VI (before he was made Patriarch), who the Coptic Church has since added to their calendar of saints. While still a member of the Coptic Church, Dr. George wrote a book on the Orthodox patristic understanding of “theosis”. Dr. George’s book on the subject was banned, and he was excommunicated by the Coptic Church, in 1984. Dr. George makes many important comments regarding Pope Shenouda’s rejection of theosis as a “Byzantine heresy”, and provides a great deal of insight into the Coptic Church in general:
http://www.roadtoemmaus.net/back_issue_articles/RTE_38/With_the_Dessert_Fathers_of_Egypt.pdf
Pope Shenouda has written a number of pamphlets against theosis. I have not read these pamplets, but I know that another book on theosis, by Fr. Anthony Coniaris, was banned by the Coptic Church under Pope Shenouda; and the Pope was very much against writings on this subject by the well-known Copt Fr. Matthew the Poor who took his teaching from Orthodox writings such as the Philokalia.
Theosis is the whole purpose of our Christian lives. The Incarnation, death, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Lord occured precisely for our theosis. If the Coptic Church does not agree with the Orthodox Church on the whole purpose of the Incarnation, death, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Lord; if they do not agree on the whole purpose of our Christian lives; what unity can there be between the Coptic Church and the Orthodox Church?
Of course, the reasons why the Coptic Church is not Orthodox is a separate issue from Pope Shenouda being commemorated in the Trisagion prayers by certain Antiochian clergymen. Even if Pope Shenouda was in complete agreement with the Orthodox faith, he still did not repose in communion with the Orthodox Church and so the Trisagion prayers should not have been said for him according to the Antiochian (and other) guidelines.
Jason, unfortunately there are quite a few in the Antiochians who don’t believe that the non-Chaldedonians are heretic and proceed on the basis of their private belief.
Michael Bauman writes: “Jason, unfortunately there are quite a few in the Antiochians who don’t believe that the non-Chaldedonians are heretic and proceed on the basis of their private belief.”
I agree with with Mr Bauman’s assessment, except for the adverb.
Fr. Patrick, until the Council of Chalcedon is overturned and the anathamas against several that the Coptic and other Oriental Orthodox revere as saints reversed, what else can it be but a private belief. Perhaps you would prefer personal belief? What authority has any of us to arrogate our own personal belief over the authority of the Councils and Holy Tradition?
Pope Shenouda III was likely a courageous and good guy, Fine, I appreciate that. However, he had no qualms about excommunicating Dr. George Bebawi, firing him from his position in the Coptic university and banning his book on theosis because Pope Shenouda beleived the teaching of theosis to be heretical.
I think by any historical standard Pope Shenouda was a heretic.
So back to a question no one has yet answered: Can a heretic be called a good Christian and celebrated as such? Further: is it proper for priests to publically commemorate in liturgical style services (if not wholly sacramental) a person with whom we are not in communion and appears to be a heretic. If that is worthy and possible, how come I cannot have the same mercy and grace extended to my mother and father who were certainly hetrodox in their beliefs but came closer to being Orthodox than it appears Pope Shenouda did?
The ultimate solution to many of the ills and disputes we are suffering in the Church comes down to answering the following: In whom is authority vested, why and how may that authority be properly execised? Are we going to be obedident to any such authority or will our own private/personal beliefs (often confomred to the mind of the world) take precedence?
Michael Bauman inquires:
“Are we going to be obedident to any such authority or will our own private/personal beliefs (often confomred to the mind of the world) take precedence?”
He is apparently accusing me of something, though I am not sure what.
In any case, his accusation is unjust.
Unless Mr Bauman is referring to my occasional lapses into bootlegging and cattle rustling, my actions have been entirely consistent with the discipline of my Archdiocese and the Patriarchate of Antioch.
Michael, please do not let anyone cow you into thinking you’re working above your pay grade. You have an excellent grasp on all of these issues. I applaud you and Jason.
Helga, my real point (which has yet to be addressed) is not in proclaiming anyone a heretic** but in the standards and practicies of our own tradition. Do we hold to them or not? Do we even know what they are? The whole conversation was started by the statement from Andrew (I believe) who did not even know that the anti-Chalcedonians were not Orthodox and not in full communion with us. I answered him simply at first and asked for correction if I was wrong. No correction actually came until (much later and a few scarastic swipes) Fr. John Morris provided some.
I have repeatedly stated that if a ruling bishop would simply say something like: “It is appropriated to offer the Trisagion for Pope Shenouda because…. even though we are not in communion” I would be fine with that. It is the shadowy and hidden nature of the recognition that bothers me and causes confusion in the faithful. If we are not in communion, then no one should act as if we are in commuinon except in the case of genuine, specific and openly expressed economia.
No one has yet repsponeded to my questions: If it is allowable for to offer the Trisagion for Pope Shenouda, why not for my parents, why not for everyone. Why not open communion?
If, as Fr. Patrick states, that anti-Chalcedonians are being communed by many priests throughout the AOCA, why? Is that a directive from Met. Philip? My diocesan bishop has told me personally that we are not in communion with the Copts, Ethiopians, etc. so its not happening in his diocese (or whatever it is).
It seems that confusion is preferable to truth. What the Church does or does not do, or what the policies are, are not really my baliwick. However, guarding my heart against heretical/schismatic impluses, thoughts and beliefs is my responsibility. The Councils have declared as anathama several of writers the Copts honor as saints. They are not now in commuion with us and haven’t been since the 5th century. To me, in my simplistic and semi-informed thoughts, means that to believe as they beleive is not in accord with the Church. If to believe as they believe is not in accord with the Church, why are we offering Trisagion prayers which are traditionally reserved only for Orthodox believers?
Confusion, confusion, always confusion–even the explations offered so far are begging the question as they conflate simple petitions for mercy with the full Trisagion prayers for forgiveness and rememberance. It would seem that the strategy is to maintain the confusion until everyone simply assumes that there is no difference and no one any longer raises questions.
**I’ll acknowledge for the moment that the Copts may not be monophysites, but that has nothing whatever to do with my questions. They are not officially, openingly, canonically in communion with the Orthodox to my knowledge. They are heretic, schismatic, or heterodox, or confused brethren, but not in communion with us. To me that makes a big difference. Apparently not so much for the actually informed (rather than semi-informed).
Mr. Bauman,
Your eloquent and heartfelt question deserves a better answer than anyone can give, because the apparent answer is beneath your question. The condolence letter on the Archdiocesan website, available at , refers to Pope Shenouda as both “Thrice-Blessed” and “Pope of Alexandria, and Patriarch of the Seat of St. Mark.” These are such obvious insults to Patriarch Theodoros and, by extension, Patriarch Bartholomew, that they cannot have been unintentional. Serving a Trisagion for your parents would not advance anyone’s jockeying for greatness in the Kingdom. Sadly, I think it’s that simple–and that demoralizing.
Mr. Bauman,
Your heartfelt and eloquent question deserves a better answer than anyone can give, because the apparent answer is beneath the question. The genuinely embarrassing condolence letter on the Archdiocesan website, available at , refers to Pope Shenouda as both “Thrice Blessed” and “Pope of Alexandria, and Patriarch of the Seat of St. Mark.” These are such obvious insults to Patriarch Theodoros and, by extension, Patriarch Bartholomew, that they cannot have been unintentional. According honor to Pope Shenouda as though he were Orthodox served an ongoing jurisdictional political interest. Sadly, I think there’s no more to it than that.
Mr. Bauman,
Your heartfelt and eloquent question deserves a better answer than anyone can give, because the apparent answer is beneath the question. The condolence letter on the Archdiocesan website refers to Pope Shenouda as both “Thrice Blessed” and “Pope of Alexandria, and Patriarch of the Seat of St. Mark.” These are such obvious insults to Patriarch Theodoros and, by extension, Patriarch Bartholomew, that they cannot have been unintentional. According honor to Pope Shenouda as though he were Orthodox served an ongoing jurisdictional political interest. Sadly, I think there’s no more to it than that.
Mr. Bauman,
Your heartfelt and eloquent questions deserve a better answer than anyone may be able to give, because the apparent answer is political rather than theological or canonical. The condolence letter on the Archdiocesan website refers to Pope Shenouda as both “Thrice-Blessed” and “Pope of Alexandria, and Patriarch of the Seat of St. Mark.” These are such obvious insults to Patriarch Theodoros (to whom the latter two titles canonically belong) and, by extension, to Patriarch Bartholomew, that the slights cannot have been unintentional. Note as well that the condolence letter praises at greater length than any other action Pope Shenouda’s opposition to Egypt’s recognition of Israel. According honor to Pope Shenouda as though he were Orthodox served a jurisdictional political interest. I don’t think there’s any more to it than that.
Perhaps it has more to do with how the Coptic Christian mindset thinks about concepts like theosis and Christ’s humanity/divinity.
There are some interesting and pertinent comments from various discussion groups run by Coptic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, all of which shed light. Here are just two links but there are lots more:
http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?topic=12913.15
“HH Pope Shenouda is not condemning theosis in this book. What he is condemning is the teaching that we partake of the same essence of the Godhead, or nature. His Holiness does not say theosis, as we understand it, is bad or wrong. He is directing this at very specific teaching of this particular person that we are assuming is Matta El Meskeen. Let us not jump to conclusions, we all understand that we do not partake of the nature of the Godhead in theosis, but become like God.”
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,5978.0.html
It is not the doctrine of theosis that is being opposed here, but rather the terminology used to convey the concept. It’s thus a mere semantic issue, but one that I believe (according to what I have heard) has been stretched far beyond what is reasonable, even to the point that I was told (and I assert that such hearsay should be taken as such) that His Eminence Metropilitan Bishoy contested the early patristic expression: “God became man, so that man may become god” due to its implications that man partakes in the divinity of Christ.”
I believe it has to do with how the Coptic Christian mindset thinks about concepts like theosis and Christ’s humanity/divinity.
There are some interesting and pertinent comments from various discussion groups run by Coptic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, all of which shed light:
http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?topic=12913.15
“HH Pope Shenouda is not condemning theosis in this book. What he is condemning is the teaching that we partake of the same essence of the Godhead, or nature. His Holiness does not say theosis, as we understand it, is bad or wrong. He is directing this at very specific teaching of this particular person that we are assuming is Matta El Meskeen. Let us not jump to conclusions, we all understand that we do not partake of the nature of the Godhead in theosis, but become like God.”
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,5978.0.html
It is not the doctrine of theosis that is being opposed here, but rather the terminology used to convey the concept. It’s thus a mere semantic issue, but one that I believe (according to what I have heard) has been stretched far beyond what is reasonable, even to the point that I was told (and I assert that such hearsay should be taken as such) that His Eminence Metropilitan Bishoy contested the early patristic expression: “God became man, so that man may become god” due to its implications that man partakes in the divinity of Christ.
In conclusion, unless I have been misinformed or am ignorant of vital and relevant information concerning this dispute, it seems to be a matter of unecessary nitpicking.
Here is a brief online article concerning theosis by Coptic Orthodox priest Fr. Anthony M. Coniaris:
http://mycopticchurch.com/articles/read.asp?f=spiritual/theosis.html
Here is an english translation of an article by His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy on the topic:
Partakers Of The Divine Nature
By His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy [click here to read the article].”
OK – Oriental OK Agreements:
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Agreed_Official_Statements_on_Christology_with_the_Catholic_and_Eastern_Orthodox_Churches
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Image:1990_OO-EO_Agreement_Excerpts.jpg
http://www.romanity.org/htm/ro4enfm.htm
http://www.antiochian.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=654&Itemid=63
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Pu3uUd-csnIC&pg=RA1-PA187&lpg=RA1-PA187&dq=Orthodox+-+oriental+orthodox+agreement&source=bl&ots=CEg1Yn1pwa&sig=yc9pQETiXGPC3hjUymDa8Rj-F7I&hl=en&ei=vAXISf3WOqCSsQP4-pX7Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PRA1-PA188,M1
What about all of these documents? I have another one, but can’t post it it’s a jpg.
Joseph, its been awhile since I’ve read these but two things: At the time these agreements originally came out everyone was hot to trot for reunion, it was right around the corner. Didn’t happen did it; I’ve also read some of the proceedings that produced some of these agreements. The Orientals were essentially demanding that Chalcedon be overturned especially that we venerate as saints the theologians declared heretic at Chalcedon. No compromise in their tone or their statements at all. No indication that they thought the differences were merely linguistic at all. The leaders were and remain adamantly monophysite even though they reject the term as accurate.
Combine that with Pope Shenouda’s belief and teaching that the doctrine of theosis is heretical and there we are. Now, you are free to beleive that the vast majority of the Oriental so-called Orthodox are equivalent in faith to what the Holy Tradition teaches, and you maybe right. However, until the bishops can agree, and maybe not even then (since false councils are not unknown), the two traditions will remain separate and not in communion with each other.
Heresy always divides the Church and the only way to reunion is through repentance. That is to say the heretic must admit their heresy and begin to comform their mind, heart and belief to the teaching of the Church. Without that step, there is no union, no healing no reality no matter what the official documents say. Since repentance is the only method of healing there is no magic wand that can be waved so that we are back together (that is a modern fallacy). Either we or they have recognize our sin and repent of 1600 years of teaching, practice and belief or the status quo remains. Sorry, but trying to say, “oh they just didn’t understand the language back then and we do now so it’s all good dosen’t work for me at all.” That is historicall stupid as it practices what is known as presentism, plus it is demeaning and trivializing both sides to the point of ludicrousness.
I’ve seen and experienced what heresy does to people who innocently follow it, it is even worse when one knowingly teaches against the revealed truth. If those who do not accept the statements and anathamas of the Council of Chalcedon are correct, then we are the heretics. If they are not correct, they remain in heresy.
To refresh folks memories, the Chalcedonian definition:
The monophysites hold to one nature a God/human fusion that is unique and unrepetable, therefore no theosis for us among many other things.
It seems to me that their iconography (from what I’ve seen of it) lacks the transcendental quality of true icons.
That’s an odd statement considering that iconography is thought to have arisen in Egypt.
“They” probably think that about “our” icons.
To the Monophysites, does the divine nature of XC obliterate His incarnate human nature, or does it “fuse” His, and therefore all, human nature into His divine nature making it of one essence with the Godhead?
I don’t know how to answer the second part of your question, Protodeacon, but I do know modern Monophysites reject the Eutychian concept of the human nature dissolving into the divine nature. Both churches condemn Eutyches’ heresy.
They still, however, say the Definition of Chalcedon and the Tome of St. Leo are too Nestorian, when in fact they are both accurate and Orthodox.
The theologians who crafted the agreed statement are clearly saying that the Oriental Orthodox are not monophysites and that the Eastern Orthodox are not Nestorians, and that both profess the same orthodox Chistology.
Now, we can all read and we all know the prior discussions on this subject. It is time to start using our heads and our hearts together and to acknowledge the truth stated in the agreed statement and just unite ourselves in the Body of Christ.
Thanks Michael, I was busy somewhere else and only today read your reply.
However, my own view of this affair has less to do with dogmatic disunity (if there actually is any which I doubt) but with “real-estate”… the fact remains, that ALL jurisdictions, including Constantinople, signed the line on our side and on the Armenian and Oriental Orthodox sides. The actual problem is the double occupation of patriarchal thrones in the east. MONEY! That is why Constantinople is not honoring its signature… Never mind any so called heretical texts by Pope Shenouda… (How many heretical texts have come out of Constantinople over the last Millenia?)
Just as Constantinople will use anything in its power to extend its rule in North America, it will NEVER give up its rule in cities of double occupancy of hierarchical thrones. The crassest example of which is of course Alexandria. The Coptic Pope has a church of 10 Million in his wake. The Byzantine Patriarch of Alexandria has, what, not even 3000 in his parishes… (yes I know about an expanding sub-Saharan African church etc pp. But that is beside the point).
We will NEVER have any NA Orthodox unity or unity with the OOC as long as “real-estate” is involved and Constantinople is under Islamic thread and in a dire financial situation. Unfortunately, Constantinople does not see an opportunity to solve its problems by fostering unity. Just imagine what alone NA could help financially and politically if we had a united church here. Constantinople is literally hell-bent on sabotaging any such thing by shortsighted policies and supremacist thinking.
I love my Coptic brethren and pray for them …. and with them!
Audio interview with His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I on Eastern and Oriental orthodox Unity and the Christological agreement already reached between the two Orthodox families. Now after almost ten years the main real hinderer seems to be the jurisdictional issue.
Listen now (MP3 – 309 Kb – right-click to save):
http://www.zeitun-eg.net/members_contrib/EcumenicalPatriarchBartholomewIOnE-OUnion.mp3
Many people leave the Orthodox Church, depart from the Faith, and lose their souls because they see Orthodox bishops and clergy trample upon the holy canons, the writings of the Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils by brazenly communing and commemorating condemned heretics that have not been in communion with the Church for centuries. While so many lose their faith and perish because of such actions, Fr. Patrick tells jokes while mocking and ridiculing those who dare to object to such betrayals of the Faith.
Many people on this website are very concerned about the moral transgressions of the clergy and the bishops of the Church, and here we see confirmation of the words of St. Gregory Palamas that “the evil passions and godless doctrines open the door to one another, finding their place once God has had reason to depart”, and “Evil passions and godlessness not only open the door to one another, they are also similar” (Homily on the Sunday of Orthodoxy). With dogmatic compromise comes moral compromise, and with moral compromise comes dogmatic compromise. In both there is a departure from God, and when one departs from God both dogmatic and moral transgressions abound.
Thankfully, not all clergy and bishops have turned away from the Faith by openly and brazenly communing and commemorating condemned heretics. We should pray for all of our clergy and bishops that they would uphold the Faith, rightly divide the word of truth, and serve as an example for the faithful to emulate. Pray also for those who are scandalized by the dogmatic and moral failures of bishops and clergy, that they would not lose their faith and altogether fall away from the Church on account of such offenses and indifference.
You are right Jason. I certainly think that one of the reasons why the Russian Orthodox Church was so punished by the Bolsheviks is their insistence that all governmental officials (even Roman Catholics, Muslims and Jews) receive communion at least once a year at Pascha. Come to think of it, I think that the whole Orthodox Church has been punished by unlawfully and brazenly advocating infrequent communion. And, what to make of the Old Calendarists who are in violation of the decision to celebrate the Nativity of Our Lord on December 25th (the Winter Solstice). I am perplexed that you are posting with approval the writings of St John Maximovitch since he was obviously an Old Calendarist and one of those bishops who are guilty of compromise. /s
Sorry,Carl, I challenge that statement. I grant there were many corruptions in Tsarist Russia, but I cannot imagine Jews, Moslems, or Roman Catholics wanting to recieve Orthodox Communion, nor would the church have permitted it. I know officers in the military and civil servants were required to swear allegiance to the Tsar. We had a neighbor back in Pennsylvania whose grandfather, a devout Lithuanian Catholic, refused to become an American citizen until after the Tsar-Martyr was killed. His reason was that as an officer in the Russian Army, he had sworn allegiance to the Tsar.
Jason wisely comments:
“Fr. Patrick tells jokes while mocking and ridiculing those who dare to object to such betrayals of the Faith.”
Jason makes a good point.
I confess to a levity that simply disguises my lack of confidence in this discussion about the Copts. It is a bad fault.
This insecurity has to do with my much lamented ignorance of Coptic, I’m afraid.
Many decades ago, I almost signed up for Coptic at the Biblical Institute. I chickened out at the last minute, however, and took Syriac instead. I have regretted the choice ever since.
When I got dragged into the recent discussion about the Copts, all my ensuing insecurities rose up in force, and I started cracking jokes.
After my ignorance of Coptic, cracking jokes is my worst fault, and I hope to repent of it.
Thank you, Jason.
Jason, I’m curious if you’re a recent convert to Orthodoxy. Can I ask from which denomination, if so?
St John of Shanghai and San Francisco’s Ukaz [Decree] No. 39, from September 23, 1951:
“Clergy are reminded that only persons belonging to the Orthodox Church are to be commemorated at the Divine Liturgy, inasmuch as such commemoration is of those persons who are participants in Divine services, in which only Orthodox Christians can participate. Similarly, those who have consciously committed suicide may not be commemorated, inasmuch as they have left the Church of their own will.
“The same can be said of burials, panikhidas, and other services that are assigned to be performed for Orthodox faithful, which is obvious from the very expressions used in them…
“In their private prayers Orthodox Christians may pray to God for all, hoping in God’s mercy.”
Get real. We pray for the President and all civil authorities; many who may be atheists, Jews & Moslems.
Diogenes reminds us, “We pray for the President and all civil authorities; many who may be atheists, Jews & Moslems.”
I wonder if St John of San Francisco did this. I am open to correction, of course, but I suspect he didn’t.
Anybody know?
Like it or not, Christ came to save all mankind, not just the “Right-Wing Conservative Orthodox.” Will there ONLY be “certain” Orthodox Christians in the Kingdom of Heaven? Will there be Jews, Moslems, Athiests and others there? As the priest says in the Liturgy of St. Basil before the consecration of the gifts (Biblical), rough translation, “…and He will come again to judge all men ACCORDING TO THEIR WORKS…” According to this, ALL people will be judged according to, “How have you loved your neighbor? What did you do?”
Diogenes, you’d better read the whole NT in its’ entirety, not just the parts you like best.
I would suggest reading the 7th and last book in C.S.Lewis’s Narnia Chronicles”The Last Battle.”
Fr. Alexiev, by that account there are those (represented by the dwarves) who are just inside the Kingdom but prefer to think of themselves as being in a darkened, dung-filled stable. They argue and quibble amongst themselves constantly. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…..
Michael,I had in mind the young man who was a Calormene(no doubt the Narnian equivalent of Muslim).Because he was sincere and seeking the truth,Aslan accepted him despite the fact that he had professed false beliefs.
The dwarves were sticking to their guns, boy howdy, and let Aslan go pound sand if he thinks he can tell us to change. We LIKE hating everybody.
The Calormene was just doing the best he could. “Oh, hello. Who are you? Are you the One everybody is talking about?”
Those who won’t be there are those who deny the divinity of the person of Jesus Christ and his salvific work. According to St. Paul, if there is anything at all that will withstand God’s fire/love(the fruit of our works?), even if it be a speck, salvation comes. My solely personal belief is that we all will get one final opporunity, face to face with Jesus to decide and either accept His mercy or not.
No atheists will be in the Kingdom. They will either cease being atheists and bow down at Jesus name or they won’t.
Kumbya universalism does not fly with this puppy or the Church. The dread judgement seat of Christ requires a good defense.
May the Lord have mercy on us all.
Fr. Patrick, you state that we pray for the “president of our country and all those in civil authority.” Isn’t that because we pray for non-Orthodox people by category, as Carl notes in the list of rules? I am basically ignorant of rubrics and canons, but a priest (OCA, for what that is worth) told me once that we only pray for Orthodox Christians by name in the liturgy. So, I figured that we could have prayed for President Michael Dukakis but only for the “president” for Bush I. (Let us all take a moment to thank Holy Michael and the Hosts for having spared us from his namesake.)
Of course, the contention being discussed is whether the non-Chalcedonians are in fact Orthodox Christians, though we fail to recognize it.
There are hawks and doves in these discussions. I am a dove with the Orientals, middle of the road with Rome, and quite hawkish with the Protestants. Regardless, we need (1) to maintain the faith and (2) to be charitable toward those separated from us, either by the tragedies of history or by the falsehoods of men.
Actually Father Patrick did not speak of praying for “all those in civil authority.” He spoke, correctly, of praying for “the civil authorities.” One can’t be IN civil authority, although one can be in authority. Of those who are in authority, some are military authorities and some are civil authorities, but they both are in authority.
This is one of those things left over from the old SVS/OCA “Divine Liturgy” book. That’s the one that had us praying for bishops who would “DEFINE” the Word of truth, as if Orthodox Bishops were ever expected to define the Truth! That would be worse than making any bishop Pope. They also had us deigning to “Ascribe’ glory to God!!!! How condescending of us! The word in the original Greek or Slavonic, etc., means to offer up or send up, not “to ascribe”. We may ascribe worthiness to someone who has just had hands laid on him, but it is hardly ours to ascribe or impute or attribute Glory to God.
And you are right: The Orthodox pray for the President and the civil authorities NO MATTER what their religion or lack of it! Now, if the Orthodox pray EVEN in the Divine Liturgy for men regardless of their religion, belief, or whatever, how could it be egregious to pray for Pope Shenouda? By the way, don’t we have a few Muslims here and there in civil authority? A few homosexuals? We pray for President Obama, even if we don’t utter his name.
Your Grace,
I was simply copying what Fr. Patrick had written himself on March 24, 2012 at 11:11 AM: “Most Orthodox Christians pray regularly—including the Divine Liturgy—for ‘the President of our country and all those in civil authority.'” I did make “president” lower case.
I am not very informed about proper translations, though I appreciate that others work to render translations better. I am a reader of “Fr. Z.’s blog,” and there the Latins are keen on good translations of liturgical texts.
Your point raises an interesting question. Would it be allowed to pray for all “heterodox religious leaders” since that would be a category? I have heard petitions like that in Roman masses before — though with “world” instead of “heterodox,” of course. Fr. Brian O’Brian would not want his flock to think that they were praying for Cardinal Mahony! 🙂
Father Joseph A. Thanks for pointing out that Father Patrick made that same mistake in an earlier post. So I should have addressed both of you, rather than just you. I believe the Antiochene’s “Liturgikon” has “all civil authorities,’ as doesthe Service Book of the OCA edited by ever-memorable Archbishop Dmitri.
“Heterodox religious leaders?” I don’t think so. Money is a religion with some, country is another, and Christopher Hitchins was religious about his atheism. Sometimes Roman Catholic translations into English are quite problematic. I believe they recently launched a substantial editing of the “You-Who” stuff that the rushed out with around Vatican II. They used to make the same mistake that the OCA and the GOA made: thinking that the main thing in translation is that native speakers of the source language ALWAYS understand that language better than non-native speakers, and this makes being a native speaker of the source language THE most important qualification for the job of translating What an awful idea. What you need first of all is an expert in English.
In Canada we (OCA) pray for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and last time I checked she was not Orthodox…
Thus endeth the debate.
I am surprised at how little attention has been given in this discussion to the guidelines of the Antiochian Archdiocese that I quoted and provided a link to in my initial response. A clear distinction is made between the Ektenia of Fervent Supplication and the Great Entrance prayers where non-Orthodox may be commemorated, and the Trisagion prayers for the departed in which non-Orthodox cannot be commemorated. Even within the prayers of Fervent Supplication and Great Entrance where non-Orthodox may be commemorated, they are commemorated separately and not together with the Orthodox. The guidelines say specifically:
============
(3.) Non-Orthodox Christians (but not non-Christians) may be
commemorated in the appropriate petitions of the Ektenia of Fervent
Supplication at Vespers and of the Great Entrance at Divine Liturgy in
the following manner.
AT THE EKTENIA OF FERVENT SUPPLICATION
For the Living: “Again we pray for mercy, life, peace, health,
salvation and visitation and pardon and forgiveness of sins for
the servants of God NN. (Orthodox Christians here), and for NN. (non-
Orthodox Christians here), and for all Orthodox Christians of true
worship …”
For the Departed: “Again we pray for the blessed and evermemorable
founders of this holy church and for the servants of
God NN. (Orthodox Christians here), and for NN. (non-Orthodox
Christians here), and for all our fathers and brethren …”
AT THE GREAT ENTRANCE
For the Living: “The Orthodox servants of God NN. (Orthodox
Christians here) and NN. (non-Orthodox Christians here), that they may
have mercy, life …”
For the Departed: “The Orthodox servants of God departed this
life in the hope of resurrection and life eternal NN. (Orthodox
Christians here) and NN. (non-Orthodox Christians here), the Lord God
remember in his kingdom …”
============
Again, these guidelines then state:
===========
(5.) The Trisagion Prayers of Mercy and Funeral Service may only be
served for the repose of the souls of Orthodox Christians.
===========
These guidelines are significant because Fr. Patrick indicated that it was in the Antiochian Archdiocese that Pope Shenouda was commemorated in the Trisagion prayers, indicating that either:
1) Throughout the Antiochian Archdiocese, clergy commemorate departed non-Orthodox in the Trisagion prayers even though this is not permitted according to the guidelines of the Archdiocese and the tradition of the Church, or
2) Throughout the Antiochian Archdiocese, clergy believe that the Coptic Church is Orthodox and part of the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” even though they have not been in communion with the Orthodox Church for centuries, and even though the Copts have been condemned as heretics by many Fathers and by our Ecumenical Councils
Above, Fr. Patrick does express some regret about about cracking jokes in response to the sincere concerns and objections that have been expressed in this thread regarding the communing of condemned heretics and their commemoration in the Trisagion prayers. I do appreciate this expression of regret from Fr. Patrick; but of course the problem highlighted in this thread is really not with Fr. Patrick, his sense of humor, or his ability to read and understand the Coptic language. The problem is that many people leave the Orthodox Church, depart from the Faith, and lose their souls because they see Orthodox bishops and clergy trample upon the holy canons, the writings of the Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils by brazenly communing and commemorating condemned heretics that have not been in communion with the Church for centuries. The problem is also that many clergy and bishops (but not all, thank God) do not seem to care about the harm caused to the faithful (or to the non-Orthodox) by such actions.
Regarding the Copts and others who broke away from the Church over 1500 yrs ago, the matter cannot be resolved by academic consultations, agreed statements, or unilateral decisions of individual bishops and clergy. All of the Ecumenical Councils came to their decisions being guided by the Holy Spirit and being led by God-bearing saints and holy hierarchs. These councils were championed by hierarchs who had themselves been purified and illumined through years of hesychastic and ascetic life, and by hierarchs who sought guidance on dogmatic issues from those who were themselves illumined by God and expereinced in the hesychastic life. For instance, St. Athanasios sought counsel and support from St. Anthony the Great regarding Arianism, and St. Symeon the Stylite and many other saints were sought out for counsel and guidance regarding the Council of Chalcedon.
Today, we have many academics who love dialogues but who seem to despise the counsels of the hesychasts and God-bearing elders of our Church. By the mercy of God, the Church continues even in our sinful generation to produce true saints and God-bearing elders, and yet none of them have expressed themselves in agreement with the notion that the Copts (or other “Non-Chalcedonians”) are anything other than condemned heretics who are outside of the Church. To act unilaterally in such overtures towards the non-Orthodox without a true Council that is guided by the Spirit and by hierarchs who are guided by the Spirit, without the agreement of the rest of the Church, without the counsels of the saints of our times, is indeed a perilous path that will cause many (and does cause many) to fall away from Christ and his Church altogether.
On this subject, the following words of Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain are worthy of much consideration:
====================================
With sadness I must write that among all the “unionists” I’ve met, never have I seen them to have either a drop or shred of spirituality. Nevertheless, they know how to speak about love and union while they themselves are not united with God, for they have not loved Him.
I would like tenderly to beseech all our unionist brothers: Since the issue of the union of the Churches is something spiritual, and we have need of spiritual love, let’s leave it to those who greatly love God and are [genuine] theologians, like the Fathers of the Church, not the legalists who have offered up and continue to give themselves in service to the Church (instead of just buying big candles), and who were and are lit by the fire of love for God rather than by the lighter of the church sacristan.
We should recognize that there exist not only natural but also spiritual laws. Therefore, the future wrath of God is not averted by a convocation of sinners (for then we shall receive double the wrath), but by repentance and adherence to the commandments of the Lord.
Also, we should know well that our Orthodox Church does not have even one shortcoming. The only apparent insufficiency is the shortage of sober Hierarchs and Shepherds with a Patristic foundation.
======================================
We should pray that God will raise up Hierarchs and Shepherds who are rooted in the Fathers and in the patristic way of life, who being themselves filled with the Holy Spirit are able to guide the Church by the Spirit through these perilous times.
Jason, I would like to read Father Patrick’s and Bishop Tikhon’s responses to your comment.
But when I read things like this in this discussion:
“Pope Shenouda was a heretic because he rejected theosis!” I say to myself, “WHAT?!!!!” and then I go a-searching to see if these things be true. Michael, please provide sources for your statement, and explanation as to why and how, if true, it could be true. It messes with people’s heads: “Really, Michael? Why, that old heretic! How dare he reject theosis!!” Well, isn’t there more to it than what you said? There has to be something else to explain it. Of course, there is a lot more to it.
Does Pope Shenouda’s “rejection” of theosis make him even more of a condemned heretic than he was before? It makes my skin prickle. When you make statements like that, would you please back them up with sources?
Diogenes, I don’t think there will be atheists, Muslims and Jews in heaven, nor even Buddhists or Hindus or pagans or Copts or Protestants or Orthodox Christians as we are now. Heaven help us I hope not. What we are now is not what we will be then.
There is a fair amount of material out there Jane. Just google Shenouda & Theosis. Below is a short excerpt from one of the hits:
“More recently a book entitled “Orthodoxy: A Creed for Today” (1972) by the Very Rev. Fr. Anthony M. Coniaris has been banned by the Holy Synod of the Coptic Church presided by Pope Shenouda III on May 26, 2007, as it discusses the Orthodox concept of theosis, which was considered to be against Pope Shenouda’s teachings.”
Source: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Shenouda_III_(Gayyid)_of_Alexandria
Heracleides, beginning to see it in the light of the whole picture is what I’m talking about, as if you were putting yourself in their mindset for a minute. How could they reject theosis? There has to be more to it than that.
Eastern Orthodox churches likely don’t carry Coptic Orthodox writings in their bookstores, either.
How can I talk about it when I don’t have the words? Yet I know it has to do with words, not action. It doesn’t mean he teaches against becoming, by grace, “partakers of the divine nature,” meaning as we see it, participating in the divine energies.
As far as I can tell, they don’t distinguish so much, or they don’t talk about it as much, that there is a distinction between energies and essence. Or rather, the teaching of divine energies and divine essence came later, after the Council of Chalcedon, and so they don’t think about that distinction. (Oh, this is dismal, I don’t want to try to write about this! If anyone thinks they can help and it would be helpful, please correct me.) They don’t use a lot of words like we all too often do, as if we can split God apart and dissect and analyze Him. As if words have any power at all. As if we know or truly understand anything about anything.
Pope Shenouda probably didn’t want to write about it at all, but he was trying to protect his people against the heresy, agreed upon by both Coptic Orthodox teaching and Eastern Orthodox thinking, that we do not “become God,” which is polytheism and terrible heresy. He wrote in reaction to other teachings being introduced within the Coptic Church that he felt were dangerous. The term he uses in his own language is translated, “polytheism.” He was reacting against a teaching of polytheism.
If I were a proper theologian or writer I could write about it much more clearly. I know for sure there is a lot more to it – or maybe a lot less to it – than what people are deciding here.
Well, Jane, Jason appears to believe that he is defending the God-bearing Fathers and ascetics and theologians of our Holy Church when he writes: “The problem is that many people leave the Orthodox Church, depart from the Faith, and lose their souls because they see Orthodox bishops and clergy trample upon the holy canons, the writings of the Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils by brazenly communing and commemorating condemned heretics that have not been in communion with the Church for centuries.”
Of course, he’s right, but he’s exaggerating. Actually, more people leave the
Church because of the Ten Commandments than for any other reason.
I don’t think one can find Council fathers EVER discussing “Church Growth” But we hear that kind of numbers-centered talk in the OCA and elsewhere in America. I think it originated mainly in the old “Women’s Missionary Alliance,” no?
I think St. Gregory said we should pray for the unbaptized heathens and pagans, etc., and if we pray fervently enough, our tears will baptize them.
I’d rather not comment on the outre distinction made officially amongst the Antiochenes between fervent prayer at the Liturgy and fervent prayer at burial services. Too marvellous, actually, for human thought and discourse! It sounds so much like some kind of compromise, no? I wouldn’t want to have been present at the nativity of that document: must have been accompanied by pains like those of childbirth.
Interestingly, by “Church growth” in some American Orthodox circles the emphasis is more on “more people joining the Church,” which is good for the Church, than on “more people coming into the True Faith,” which is good for the people. In my childhood church women’s missionary guild, the focus was on getting socks knitted to be sent to the needy, welcoming any and all who came in through the doors (in downtown Minneapolis) as if they were really special, and using money to pay to send out more people into the “foreign fields.” Except that when they prayed, “Help the missionaries in the foreign fields,” I thought they were saying, “Help the missionaries in the corn fields.” I thought that was really odd.
Jason believes: ” I do appreciate this expression of regret from Fr. Patrick; but of course the problem highlighted in this thread is really not with Fr. Patrick, his sense of humor, or his ability to read and understand the Coptic language.”
Not true, I think.
The Coptic question is highly complex, and I do not read Coptic. I am not qualified to engage in the discussion.
I should have left it to the rest of you who—evidently—do read Coptic.
Jason, thank you for this excellent comment that cuts right to the heart of things.
The Antiochian commemoration guidelines are very precise. There is no contradiction in praying for civil authorities (like Queen Elizabeth) in the Great Entrance, while reserving the Trisagion service for departed Orthodox Christians.
There is, however, a contradiction in reserving the Trisagion for departed Orthodox, while serving one for a heretic who actively rejected Orthodoxy and died outside of the Church.
Jason claims, “many people leave the Orthodox Church, depart from the Faith, and lose their souls because they see Orthodox bishops and clergy trample upon the holy canons, the writings of the Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils by brazenly communing and commemorating condemned heretics that have not been in communion with the Church for centuries.”
This has not been my experience during the past quarter century in the ministry of the Orthodox Church. I have seen several people leave the Orthodox Church, but not a single one of them because of Orthodox clergy trampling on the holy canons.
It would be instructive, doubtless, to see Jason’s support for this surprising appraisal.
I am not asking Jason to supply the documentation just now, of course. It is Great Lent, and Jason is too busy fasting and meditating on the prayer of St. Ephrem.
Fr. Patrick, I’m glad to know that none of your parishioners have departed into schism or have left Orthodoxy as a result of real or perceived compromises of the Faith by Orthodox clergy and hierarchs. I have personally known many people who joined the Orthodox Church only to depart into schism or leave Orthodoxy altogether after witnessing Orthodox priests and bishops brazenly and unashamedly violating the canons of the Church, the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, and the teachings of the Holy Fathers. Some such people, who I know personally, joined one or more of the various self-proclaimed “True” or “Genuine” Orthodox groups that are not in communion with the rest of the Church and which typically have very questionable canonical foundations and teachings. Some people I know remain with such groups at the present time, others joined such groups for a brief time but have since returned to communion with the Church, and others became even more disillusioned in such schismatic groups and left the Faith altogether.
Through different websites, I have also encountered many people who were raised in one or more of the Orthodox jurisdictions in this country who eventually left the Orthodox Church to join a schismatic group after growing utterly discouraged after repeatedly seeing and hearing their priests and bishops brazenly and without shame say and do things which directly contradict the canons of the Church, the writings of the Fathers, and the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. It would not be edifying for me to go through the laundry list of such abuses in this thread, but unfortunately such abuses do occur and people leave Orthodoxy over such scandalous words and deeds.
To give a few examples from the Antiochian Archdiocese alone, the well known Old Calendarist Archbishop Gregory of Colorado was raised in your Archdiocese until he became completely scandalized by Patriarch Athenagoras’ “lifting” of the 1054 Anathemas against the Roman Catholic Church. At that time, as a layman, he left the Archdiocese to join ROCOR which was the only jurisdiction to openly protest this act. Today, Abp Gregory is practically all by himself in schism. He is in communion with only one other bishop in the entire world, and he happens to be a monk in Abp Gregory’s own monastery.
I also know a schismatic Old Calendarist priest in Canada who was received into the Antiochian Archdiocese along with Fr. Peter Gillquist and many others of the Evangelical Orthodox Church a few decades ago. He was Antiochian for a number of years, but after seeing so many betrayals of the faith and unjustifiable compromises, he first joined ROCOR, then he went into schism from ROCOR with the retired Metropolitan Vitaly, and now he is under a very strict Old Calendarist bishop in Greece who is not in communion with the Patriarchates and who has a very questionable canonical foundation. Since his group is very tiny and believes itself to alone represent the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”, this priest used to say to me in all seriousness that “I am the only Orthodox priest in the entire western hemisphere”.
Dcn. Michael Hyatt in the Antiochian Archdiocese is known for his position as CEO of Thomas Nelson Publishers, the publishers of the Orthodox Study Bible. He also operates a blog and has an Ancient Faith Radio podcast. Dcn. Michael and his family were also among those initially received into the Antiochian Archdiocese with Fr. Peter Gillquist and the other members of the Evangelical Orthodox Church. In a 1992 issue of “The True Vine”, a publication of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America (HOCNA – another schismatic Old Calendarist group that is not in communion with the Orthodox Patriarchates), there is an article entitled “Becoming Orthodox: The Sequel”. Of course, this article takes its name from Fr. Peter Gillquist’s book entitled “Becoming Orthodox”. The article begins with the following remarks:
===================
In 1987 several hundred Evangelical Protestants were received into the Antiochian Archdiocese by Metropolitan Philip (Saliba). The story of their long and difficult journey to the doors of Orthodoxy is chronicled by Fr. Peter Gillquist in a book entitled, “Becoming Orthodox: A Journey to the Ancient Faith”. But for at least five families in Nashville, Tennessee, who had been part of this group, the story was not over.
On October 21, 1991, twenty-seven people, including two priests and one deacon, were received into the Holy Orthodox Church in North America by Bishop Ephraim of Boston – twenty by Holy Baptism and seven by Chrismation. This is their story as told by one of the faithful from Nashville.
==============
The story then begins:
=======
When we first entered into the Antiochian Archdiocese we were excited and eager to learn. We read anything we could find, asked questions, and read some more. The more we grew in our understanding and experience of the Orthodox Faith, the deeper our love for it grew. However, as time wore on, we began to confront numerous anomalies and inconsistencies. Our experience within the Archdiocese simply didn’t reflect what we found in the writings of the Fathers…
=======
The story goes on to describe the concerns regarding Ecumenism, various innovations that have been adopted in the Antiochian Archdiocese under Metropolitan Phillip, and their joy over encountering and corresponding with a HOCNA bishop who seemed to care much more about following the Fathers.
Dcn. Michael Hyatt was part of this group that joined HOCNA in 1991. He did eventually return to the Antiochian Archdiocese, but I know of others who were part of this group who remain in schism to this day because of the unjustifiable innovations and betrayals of traditional Orthodox ecclesiology that they saw while they were with the Archdiocese.
I know one man who started a blog about his journey from the Baptist faith to Orthodoxy just a few years ago, who has a similar story. He and his family were received into the Antiochian Archdiocese at the exact parish where Dcn. Michael serves. After his family was received into the Archdiocese, and as they began to spend more time studying the writings of the Fathers, they grew increasingly concerned about many things that they were seeing and hearing from Orthodox clergy and bishops. He and his wife and children eventually left their parish and are now members of another schismatic group that is not in communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church.
Now, these are just a few examples among the many I know who have gone into schism from various Orthodox jurisdictions, or lost their faith altogether, on account of the indifference that some Orthodox priests and bishops exhibit towards the canons of the Church, the writings of the Fathers, and the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. We can certainly find fault with the decisions of those who have gone into schism, but those who gave occasion for such scandal are certainly responsible as well. Often it is converts who are weak in the faith and very idealistic who depart into such schisms, but I have known many who were raised in pious Orthodox homes who made similar decisions. To those who cause scandal for others who are weak in the faith, the Lord says, “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea (Mark 9:42).”
I’m sure many more people leave the Orthodox Church because of personal laxity and indifference than excessive and misguided zeal. However, the Lord cares about the souls of all and does not wish to see any perish. Communing Non-Chalcedonians and commemorating them and other non-Orthodox in the Trisagion prayers does not benefit anyone and is only a source of scandal. If the Ecumenical Councils and the Fathers are correct (should we even have to ask the question?), the Non-Chalcedonians are outside of the Church and do not have true and grace-filled sacraments. By affirming or insinuating that they are already part of the Orthodox Church, we create an obstacle for those who may otherwise wish to convert to Orthodoxy, and we may prevent them from ever experiencing the grace of God that operates through the Church’s mysteries. As a priest of the Church, you are in a position to either edify or scandalize, to lead people into the truth or into confusion and indifference. In our time, priests and bishops routinely lower the bar to make accommodations for the lax and indifferent. Will you not also show some compassion and consideration to those who are zealous for the Faith but susceptible to despair when they see the Faith unashamedly disregarded by the clergy?
Jason, sorry but your arguments and the examples you list do not convince me. These people are nothing more that self-styled protestant-orthodox infallible mini-popes… They set themselves up over priests, bishops, synods and Patriarchs in deciding what is authentically “Orthodox.” As with the original Protestants, they splinter into infinitesimally small sub-groups and eventually become a church of and onto themselves, a one man church….
Their sin is pride…
Jason, I’ve experienced some of that. Not exactly, but I know what you mean, and relate on a personal level. It’s very painful indeed. I’m vague about it because it doesn’t matter now. The members of one jurisdiction, especially clergy, should not hold “their” church up over another lest they too get mud on their faces. When you point the finger at someone else, your thumb is pointing back at yourself.
Jason’s comment struck a chord with me. Here we go again. Almost inevitably and very predictably, rather than getting a reply, there is only one side to the story: Full stop. The people, the lay people in question, will be responsible for any and all dissension or problems. Regardless of whether they were “to blame completely for everything,” can anyone address Jason’s concerns with compassion and understand what he is trying to say, and answer his questions? He is clearly troubled by what he has experienced. He says, “The story goes on to describe the concerns regarding Ecumenism, various innovations that have been adopted in the Antiochian Archdiocese under Metropolitan Phillip.” Well, what about the “various innovations” and “Ecumenism”? Clearly people are writing about it. We all know the answer: Nope. Nope. And … nope. Problem solved. There is no problem.
Man, I tell you, I’ve been squashed a bit myself by Priests in Power. You feel like a little bug.
When I read priests of one jurisdiction writing comments with the implication that their jurisdiction has the moral high ground over the other, I remember my own experiences, and I know that there is no moral high ground, especially when it comes to what we think we know about anybody, whether they wear black, purple, green, white, pink, or gray,
Jason, I really cannot let this false testimony stand without contradiction.
I was a deacon of the Church during the sad episodes that you rehearse here, close enough to the events to know that your account of them is bogus.
These folks left the Church in a spirit of open rebellion, preferring their own will and their own narrow interpretation of the canons..
Don’t take my word for it. Ask any of them who have since returned, such as Deacon Michael, whom you were imprudent enough to cite.
It would be interesting to know your credentials for passing judgment on the canonical decisions of Orthodox bishops.
Well, basing the entire “canard” (not my word) on a trip by Bush is outside my frame of reference. I don’t recall hearing that one before. It’s my conviction, not based on any such canards at all, that the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran was encouraged by American allies of the Reagan camp to delay releasing the hostages until Reagan was President and not to release them while Carter was president. Father Hans, for some reason, declared that no one thought that Reagan could be elected until three weeks before the election. That was meant, presumably, to rule out the likelihood of any overtures from th Reagan came because the Ayatollah wouldn’t have believed that Reagan would be elected unti then. As if any overtures before the three week period would have been rejected FOREVER. It’s well-known that inaugurations happen after elections, too. I don’t disagree with George there. It was not I that posited that the three week interval before the election was somehow important.
And I’ve never been one to say that the purchase of jet aircraft from the Reagan administration by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran was another example of favor towards the great Reagan. That would be another one of those unsportsmanlike lefty “talking points” .
Father Patrick wrote: “It would be interesting to know your credentials for passing judgment on the canonical decisions of Orthodox bishops.”
How could anyone write that question? I’ve never responded from such hierarchical lofty heights as Father Patrick’s to anyone’s passing judgments on any bishops decisions. This is a new level of the notorious clericalism, is it not?
The question he posits also is an example of the logical fallacy known as “the double (or complex) question. He ASSUMES that the bishops’ decisions cited were canonical. That question has not been determined..
I wonder: will the style and priorities of the next Archbishop in Englewood differ as much from Metropolitan Philip’s as his did from those of Metropolitan Antony Bashir? For example, what were considered to be canonical psalms and Gospel verses under Metropolitan Antony Bashir, were considered under Metropolitan Philip to be “Russian hymns.’ (The typical psalms and beatitude verses prescribed for Sundays in the Typikon until the modern revision of the latter in the Constantinopolitan Church, which mandated their replacement by refrains to nothing.)
Your Grace, what difference would it make whether Reagan was elected or whether he was inaugurated. Once he was elected, then the jig was up for Carter. The way that I understand the original “October Surprise” and all subsequent October Surprises is that they have to be executed sometime in late October to maximize the electoral impact.
Hence, when it appeared that Bush 41 was going to win re-election on the Thur before election day the DOJ indicted Cap Weinberger. Likewise in 2000 when that goofball lawyer in Maine released Bush 43’s drunk driving record, also on Thur before the election.
What’s my point? if there was a plan between the Iranians and the Reagan camp, it had to take place in October and once he was elected, then the hostages could be released immediately after election day. As it was, I can see why the Iranians would wait until Inauguration, as an olive branch to the new president, nothing more.
Bishop Tikhon’s comment:
“Father Patrick wrote: ‘It would be interesting to know your credentials for passing judgment on the canonical decisions of Orthodox bishops.’
“How could anyone write that question? I’ve never responded from such hierarchical lofty heights as Father Patrick’s to anyone’s passing judgments on any bishops decisions. This is a new level of the notorious clericalism, is it not?”
No, it was a simple inquiry, not a challenge.
My reason for the inquiry was entirely sociological. For decades I been interested in the backgrounds of recent converts to the Orthodox Church.
I could go into this in greater detail, I suppose, but at this stage of the discussion it seems sort of pointless.
Fr. Patrick,
I’m not sure what false testimony you are referring to. I quoted briefly the story concerning those that left the Antiochian parish that you were apparently serving as a deacon at that time, not to say that they were justified in departing into schism, but as an example of the fact that many people have left the Church and do leave the Church over aparent compromises of the Faith; such as words and deeds which seemingly affirm that the non-Orthodox are members of the Church, that the Fathers of the Church were mistaken, that the canons are no longer relevant, that the Seven Ecumenical Councils were not guided by the Holy Spirit, that the church is led by academic research rather than by God-bearing Fathers, that fasting and Confession are no longer necessary, that that the body of Christ is divided or dismembered, etc.
I provided a few examples, but I personally know many people, and have heard the stories of many people, who have left different jurisdictions because they have become convinced through the words and deeds of their priests and bishops that the Ecumenical Councils and Fathers are quite simply no longer of value.
When the bishops and clergy do not uphold the traditional Faith and praxis of the Church, then the faithful become easy prey for the schismatic wolves who do appear to uphold the true Faith and traditional praxis of the Church while standing on a rotten foundation of distorted and misapplied canons and patristic principles.
From what I have said previously, it should be clear that I am not asserting the innocence of those who lose their faith and depart into schisms when they perceive a betrayal of the Faith, nor am I solely blaming the words and deeds of clergy and hierarchs for such reactions among the clergy and faithful who depart. I do wish, however, that the hierarchs and clergy would be more aware of the fact that people do fall away when the Faith and praxis of the Church is compromised, and would speak and act more responsibly with this in mind.
I’m not sure what you are referring to when you accuse me of “passing judgment on the canonical decisions of Orthodox bishops”. What canonical decisions have I passed judment on that require certain “credentials” from me? What is even meant by the phrase “canonical decision”? Is every decision made by a canonical bishop a canonical decision, or one that automatically is guided by the Spirit?
I’m sure we could come up with a lot of decisions, words, and deeds that have been made by canonical hierarchs that simply should not have been made and are frankly a betrayal of Christ. I have been wishing to avoid naming specifics because doing so would only scandalize and would not edify, though it seems that you are pressing me for more and more specifics.
Of course, not every priest or bishop is guilty of such betrayals of the Faith, thank God, nor has there ever been a time in the Church where such betrayals could not be found. This fact is important to realize when people appear advocating schism, but this fact does not render innocent those who commit such betrayals to the scandal and falling away of many.
Jason quotes: “When we first entered into the Antiochian Archdiocese we were excited and eager to learn. We read anything we could find, asked questions, and read some more. The more we grew in our understanding and experience of the Orthodox Faith, the deeper our love for it grew. However, as time wore on, we began to confront numerous anomalies and inconsistencies. Our experience within the Archdiocese simply didn’t reflect what we found in the writings of the Fathers…”
Exactly my point: It happens that I knew these people, and I knew them to be rebellious, self-willed, and deluded.
Their testimony, cited by Jason, was false. Jason’s citation of their testimony does him scant credit as a judge.
Jason, it is not nearly as simple as you make it seem. Don’t you find it somewhat instructive that so many of these folks ended up in schismatic groups and got smaller and smaller and smaller? People gravitate to what they love. If someone loves his own mind, he will end up following it and justify the fact that he alone has the truth, or only his group has the truth. What utter bunk! Been there, done that myself before Jesus Christ led me to the Church.
People don’t become schismatic because of the scandalous actions of anyone else real or imagined. They become schismatic because of the darkness in their own heart: unwillingness to forgive and see their own sins first chief among them; their own unwillingness to be obedient. That does not excuse the actions of the various priests and bishops, but schism is never the answer. The wheat and the tares are to grow together. Do we trust the Holy Spirit or not? For schismatics the answer is always no, except as the Holy Spirit is revealed through ME!.
Heresy and schism reside in each person’s heart, they are not external nor are they caused by external events. They can be triggered by perceptions of those events, but not caused by them.
The Church has always been a mess. Until Jesus comes again, she always will be a mess. It is called sin. Most of us have heretical and schismatic beliefs and tendencies within our hearts. We cannot serve two masters.
Jason, thank you for the opportunity to see more clearly into my own tendencies to such sinful thinking and indeed, thanks to all here for the gentle correction recently with regard to Pope Shenouda. Forgive me.
Regarding my words above about responsibility, Fr. Andrew Phillips of ROCOR said it best (though with characteristic bluntness):
“All I can say is that the day that Local Churches, such as the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch and the Churches of Greece, Romania and Bulgaria, return to the Orthodox Calendar and Orthodox practice as regards ecumenism, Old Calendarism will disappear. But as long as those Churches are influenced by freemasonry and modernism, Old Calendarism will continue and even prosper. If they continue thus, Old Calendarism has a great future before it. The fact is that the Old Calendarists will not return to their Mother-Churches, for as long as their hierarchies wallow in freemasonry and therefore modernism and ecumenism.
“To all you ecumenists and modernists, I say: You have brought this on yourselves. Worse still, it is written that, although ‘schismatics’ (as you claim the Old Calendarists to be) sin, those who cause schism are to be judged more severely. Tremble then, if you insult Holy Orthodoxy and break the hearts of the faithful, causing the little ones to fall. As for me, I shiver when I hear the words:
“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea (Matthew 18,6).”
http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/calendar.htm
Well, when Father Patrick wrote: ‘It would be interesting to know your credentials for passing judgment on the canonical decisions of Orthodox bishops,” how was anyone to guess this was part of a sociological study, and not a “Show me: your credentials, Buster” avoidance of substantial comment?
And he also wrote, “My reason for the inquiry was entirely sociological. For decades I been interested in the backgrounds of recent converts to the Orthodox Church.”
Hint: Just ask, ‘I’m interested in your background as a recent convert to the Orthodox Church. How much did you weigh before? Do you have a foreign-born wife? And so on. I, for one, hadn’t the slightest idea such a questioning of credentials was research-driven! My mistake!
I appreciate your patience, Your Grace. May all of us finish up a fruitful Lent this week.
Seeking your blessing,
PHR
That reminds me of a problem in my preparation for Holy Communion prayers, “A Manual of Eastern Orthodox Prayers”, St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, reprinted 1999. It states in Prayer 6 of St. Basil the Great. on page 70 (line 8), “Be pitiful, therefore, O Lord, and put me not to rebuke, a sinner, . . . ” I don’t think that the Lord is ever pitiful. Another reading for the prayer (from elsewhere) under discussion reads “Have compassion, therefore, O Lord, . . . ” I prefer this and penciled the correction into my prayer book.
There have been many theological conferences & meetings between the so-called Momophysites and Orthodox Christians over the years. Many Greek, Arab & Russian theologians. The consensus has always been that the so-called Monophysites, aren’t really Monophysites after all. Now, this does not mean that the “original” condemnation of the language expressing who Christ is wasn’t a “REAL” issue, it was. And, the stubbornness of the two groups with their leaders to come to an agreement was also real. Much has been said regarding the expression of theological ideas between the Alexandrian School and the School of Antioch compounded by Greek philosophical terminology. Today when all of this has been examined, it is generally accepted by Orthodox theologians, that the Orthodox and so-called Monophysites were stating the same thing. Maybe not clear enough for the Orthodox at the time and maybe not just “semantics,” but theologically stating the same reality about who Jesus Christ is. Following these meetings, the Orthodox theologians have stated that there really is no reason for the split in the Churches. Inter-communion should be re-established. However, for the faithful to accept this may take years. For this reason, certain Orthodox bishops have decided to commune the so-called Monophysites in their Orthodox churches. What is needed is a general encyclical to be drawn up re-establishing inter-communion with theological reasoning and signed by ALL Orthodox bishops.
That would do it for me. Even if I didn’t personally agree. Decades ago there was movement in that direction, but the Patriarch of Antioch stopped it, at least that is my recollection.
Diogenes has put the matter succinctly and—as far as I can determine—accurately.
In the past quarter century of my ministry in the Orthodox Church, I have anointed, heard the Confessions of, and given Holy Communion to countless Ethiopian, Coptic, and Armenian Christians.
I have been doing this longer than some of the correspondents on this blog site have been Orthodox.
I have discussed theology with many of these Christians, and I have yet to find one who could be accurately described as a Monophysite.
If it is allowable to pray specific liturgical services for any person not officially in communion with the Church, why not for all? Why cannot I request and expect that the Trisagion Service be offered for my parents? When my brother was a priest in a off-shoot organization, I was told that if he came to worship, he could not wear his cassok because it would cause confusion (and I was the one who had to tell him). Roman Catholics could wear their clerics, but not my brother (now cannonically Orthodox by the grace of God). I sincerely doubt that neither my brother not the Roman Catholic priest who some in my parish have as relatives would have had a Trisagion offered for them had they died.
Whether Pope Shenouda was a heretic or not, he was not in communion with us nor we with him. The course of this thread shows abundantly that failure to maintain the proscribed distinctions (regardless of whether we think they are correct or not) does sow confusion. Even praying for our non-Orthodox leaders and the non-Orthodox military in our common worship is problematic as such petitions often become political statements rather than prayer. Perhaps even offering petitions for our non-Orthodox family can also sow confusion.
Heretic, schismatic (I believe it was St. Gregory of Nyssa who called schismatics worse that heretics),
non-Chalcedonian Orthodox (oxymoron), heterodox, whatever the description of his belief, Pope Shenouda was not in communion with the Church. If Met. Philip or other ruling bishop had specifically come out and said something like, “As an act of economia for a great and courageous leader, it is proper to offer the Trisagion for the repose of his soul.” I would have been fine with that. The patch work, personal belief offerings are the ones that are problematic in my mind.
Unlike many of our families who never really had the opportunity to become Orthodox, Pope Shenouda did have the opportunity to become Orthodox and could have. He chose not to. He certainly had no qualms about banning Orthodox writings (Connaris and Bebawi for instance). I acutally have no problem with his actions in that regard as he was fulfilling his office as he saw fit, protecting his flock from what he regarded as untruth, harmful to their souls. But his actions do indicate that he felt there was significant, not trivial differences in belief and practice between us.
Should we do less? The answer is not be be more ‘liberal’ with our conduct, but stonger in realizing the truth we have been given to guard (economia as noted above is possible, but….when it slides into license, it stops being economia).
Michael, I was far more confused by your absolute statement, made earlier, that he rejected theosis, than I was by any worrying about who was praying for whom and how. (Or is it whom was praying for who and how?)
You said: “Pope Shenouda did have the opportunity to become Orthodox and could have. He chose not to.” Whoa. Calm down. I’ve heard that said about a lot of people by a lot of people who look so hard at their own beliefs that they think everybody else should be like them. Walk around in their shoes a while and see how it goes. I thought God was in control, and is merciful, slow to anger and abundant in mercy, understanding our weaknesses, condescending to our humanity, and making the evil be good. Let’s say good things about a great man who has fallen asleep in the Lord Jesus Christ, Who was his sole focus his whole life.
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/pope/#Biography
“His Holiness was born Nazeer Gayed on August 3, 1923, to a pious Christian family in Egypt. By the age of 16, H. H. was active in the Sunday School movement, which wrought to enrich Christian Education in the Coptic Orthodox Church.
When H. H. graduated from Cairo University, he joined the Coptic Orthodox Seminary, and upon graduation, joined the faculty of the seminary.
On July 18, 1954, H. H. chose the solitude of the Egyptian desert and the angelic life of monasticism over everything else, taking the example of St. Anthony the Great. As a monk, and later a monk priest, H. H. carried the name of the Christian monk and was know as Fr. Antonious El-Syriani.
Wishing to live in complete solitude and devotion to our Lord, he became a hermit and lived in a cave that he had carved out himself for a period of six years. On September 30, 1962, he was called by the late Pope Cyril VI to be consecrated Bishop of Christian Education and President of the Coptic Orthodox Theological Seminary. He was known as His Grace Bishop Shenouda. Through his leadership of the seminary, the number of students tripled.
On November 14, 1971, His Grace Bishop Shenouda was consecrated as His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, the 117th Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St. Mark.”
I hope His Holiness Pope Shenouda III is praying for us with an understanding look on his shiny face.
“His Holiness Pope Shenouda III is well known for his deep commitment to Christian Unity. In an address he gave at an ecumenical forum during the International Week of Prayer in 1974, he declared, “The whole Christian world is anxious to see the church unite. Christian people, being fed up with divisions, are pushing their church leaders to do something about church unity and I am sure that the Holy Spirit is inspiring us.”
H. H. has emphasized that Christian Unity must be found upon a unity of faith and not a unity of jurisdiction. As a result, H. H. has paid many visits to the various sister Orthodox churches and their patriarchs, such as those of Constantinople, Moscow, Romania, and Antioch. A full communion of these churches with the Oriental Orthodox Churches is very close.”
It is never easy to become Orthodox. For some the sacrifice is too great. For some it is not necessary. That is not the point really.
Jesus Christ saves whom ever He wishes to save. We know some of his standards, we do not know them all. However, we should be aware of and guard the standards and practices that have been entrusted to us just as Pope Shenouda did.
What are we to think of the Biblical statement that, “whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven?”
The bindings prounouced by the 4th Council may be a little looser now than then (or maybe not). It’s not for me to decide: they have not been reversed to my knowledge despite all the hopes and wishes and work of many. Perhaps there is a good reason for that despite its perceived ‘closeness’ in 1974. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is causing the delay. The fact is, we do not share communion. We should not act as if we do.
PS did reject theosis in his writings, he did ban specifically Orthodox writings that supported theosis. He pretty much dusted off his feet against Dr. George Bebawi (not the most diplomatic man to be sure).
Pope Shenouda certainly took the the theological differences between us seriously, as he should.
If we are to reunify for good reasons, God be praised. It has not happened yet. If we are not to be reunified, that is sad. Outwardly, they may have the best of it by not unifying with us. Who would want to?
But for individuals, based on their on personal interpretation of seriously difficult theology decide it all doesn’t matter and “I’ll take the actions I deem appropriate”, that’s a problem.
Where is the authority in the Church if not the Councils and the teachings of the Fathers and the subsequent tradition? If we deny that and ecomonmia the tradition to death, we are nothing but fancy dress protestants.
We can’t just ‘make-it-up-as-we-go-along. I tried that once, it sucks. It is the truly the road to perdition.
Michael, read these excerpts! This is good reading and very important. (Sorry I couldn’t clean up the gappiness.)
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Eastern-Orthodox-1456/2011/4/Theosis-Coptic-Orthodoxy.htm
“St. Basil says:”We say that we know the greatness of God, His power, His wisdom, His goodness, His providence over us, and the justness of His judgment; but not His very essence. …. The energies are numerous and the essence of God simple and what we know when we say God is in fact His energies. We do not pressure to approach His essence. His energies come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach.”
this is how he explains what St. Peter means by saying that we are to become:”Partakers of the divine nature,” II Peter 1:4 which means to share God’s eternal kingdom through sharing his holiness. when a human being becomes holy and perfect it is a relative matter. pure perfection is only in the capacity of God alone.
St. Athanasius of Alexandria says: “The Son of God became man, that we might become God”, indicates the concept beautifully. St. Athanasius amplifies the meaning of this verse “Partakers of the divine nature,” when he says theosis is “becoming by grace what God is by nature” (De Incarnatione, I). What would otherwise seem absurd, that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holy, has been made possible through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate.
The crucial Christian belief, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis – it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God or even another god.
what Pope Shenouda rejects is that some people thought that human beings can become God, also some others thought a human being can become one with God exactly as Lord Jesus was. Coptic Orthodoxy teaches that u can reach “relative perfection” not “Hypostatic Union,” which is itself a definition of the incarnation of Lord Jesus.”
http://www.copticnet.com/Articles/English%20Articles/Partakers%20Of%20The%20Divine%20Nature.pdf
From “Partakers Of The Divine Nature” by His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy
“Saint Basil the Great wrote: “We say that we know the greatness of God, His power, His wisdom, His goodness, His providence over us, and the justness of His judgment, but not His very essence… The energies are diversified, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His energies, but do not undertake to approach near to His
essence. His energies come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach… So knowledge of the divine essence involves perception of His incomprehensibility, and the object of our worship is not that of which we comprehend the essence, but of which we comprehend that the essence exists.”
In view of this explanation of Saint Basil the Great we can understand the teaching of Saint Peter in his second epistle when he mentioned the precious and great promises of God by which the believers can become ‘partakers of the divine nature’ θειας κοινωνοι φυσεως (2 Pet 1:4). Unfortunately, some people corrupt this verse by saying, “Partakers in the divine nature”… This is not what Saint Peter wrote! It is not
possible by any means that any creature partakes in the nature, being, or essence of God. Whoever claims this is caught in a great theological error against the faith in God, and against the superiority of His essence and nature over all creation. This claim is also the type of pride that the devil previously fell into when he said, “I will be like the Most High” (Is 14:14). May the Lord keep us from such destructing pride. By saying “partakers of the divine nature” Saint Peter simply means that we become
partakers with God in His eternal life through partaking in His Holiness, paraphrasing the commandment “Be holy, for I am holy”. Even being partakers of the holiness of God is relative, and not absolute. Perfection of the creation is relative but perfection of God is absolute. Holiness of God is natural and not acquired but holiness of saints is acquired.
Speaking of partaking in the divine life as the saint’s inheritance of eternal life Saint Peter the apostle said, “through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these
you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (2 Pet 1:3-4).
We are partakers in the work with God as our teacher Saint Paul said of himself and Apollos, “We are God’s fellow workers” (1 Cor 3:9). We partake of the spiritual life with God as mentioned in the apostolic blessing, “The communion, donation, and gift of the Holy Spirit be will you all.” We are partakers of the divine nature in immortality, holiness, kingdom, eternal joy, and love of which our Lord Jesus Christ said in His commune with the Father, “O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love
with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.” (Jn 17:26).
Our Lord Jesus Christ asks the Father that the love between Them can be in the disciples.
He means here the type of love, not its amount. The Father is infinite and the Son is infinite, therefore the love between them is infinite. We are finite and limited: we obtain as much as we can from divine love. Thus, a communion of love is found between us and God, and we become partakers of the divine nature, but not partakers in the divine nature
as some dare saying. May the Lord have mercy upon us, to feel our weaknesses and sins, so that we do not fall into pride.”
http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/soterlecture1.pdf
( Deification:
Deification is an ancient theological term used to describe the process by which a Christian becomes more like God. A distinction must be drawn between the idea of deification as “becoming God” (theosis) and
as “becoming like God” (homoiosis theoi).
( What Deification is not:
When the Church calls us to pursue godliness, to be more like God, this doesn’t mean that human beings then become divine. We do not become like God in His nature. That would not only be a heresy, it
would be impossible. For we are human, always have been human, and will always remain human. We cannot take on the divine nature of God. God said it clearly, “My glory (of the divinity) I will not give to another” (Is 42:8). In (Jn 10:34), our Lord Jesus Christ, quoting (Ps 82:6) repeats the passage, “You are gods”. The fact that He was speaking to a group of hypocritical religious leaders who were accusing Him of blasphemy makes the meaning very clear: our Lord was not using “god” to refer to divine nature. We are gods in that we bear His likeness, not His nature. Moreover, the same Holy Psalm says in the next verse, “You shall die like men and fall like one of the princes” (Ps 82:7)
( What Deification is:
Deification means we are to become more like God through His grace. When the Son of God assumed our humanity in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the process of our being renewed in God’s
image and likeness was begun. Thus, those who are joined to Christ through Faith, Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist begin a re-creation process, being renewed in God’s image and likeness. We become as St.
Peter writes, “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4) These words of St. Peter and some sayings of the Fathers were taken out of context to promote the heresy of Pantheism according to which humans are gods in nature and not just as a courtesy title ”.
H.H. Pope Shenouda III explained this in his book ‘Many years with people’s questions’ part II, q.27, p. 55-57: he said that a hypostatic (personal) union between the divine nature and a human nature only took
place in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ; the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ is undermined by two ways:
1. Belittling our Lord and claiming that He was created Æ Arianism.
2. Exalting creatures (humans) to His Divine Level Æ Pantheism.
What St. Peter means is partaking of the divine virtues and not the essence of the Godhead. He therefore shows us the way by saying in the same verse, “… having escaped the corruption that is in the
world through lust” (1 Pet 1:4). Those who misinterpret St. Peter’s words fall into the deception of Satan who said to Eve, “you will be like God” (Gen 3:5), the devil convinced her that they would be divine!”
Thye only thing worse than “google scholars” are lazy “scholars.” Has anyone actually studied Patristics and Church History before posting these “exhibitions?”
It is St. Cyril’s definition that constitutes the Faith of the Fathers: Μια φυσις του θεου λογου σεσαρκωμενη. These are St. Cyril’s exact words, and he literally said “One nature in God the Word made flesh.” The Armenians and Copts, who were not even present at Chalcedon, fully accepted the definition of St. Cyril of Alexandria – who actually proposed the definition at Ephesus, where it was not discussed, and he reposed before Chalcedon. The Armenians and Copts were not “monophysite” followers of Eutyches, but rather in agreement with Cyril of Alexandria. We are undoubtedly separated, but not by heresy.
May Pope Shenouda’s memory be eternal!
While I find Samn!’s comments regarding the Late Pope & Patriarch personally interesting, I am not in the least bit convinced that it is in any manner appropriate to speak of the Armenians & Copts as other than victims of centuries of theological, spiritual, and physical isolation from the core of the Orthodox mainstream. Historical circumstances prevented their presence at Chalcedon, and they never had the opportunity to join the “debate” regarding Eutyches.
Nevertheless, they were present at Ephesus and beyond, to accept the teachings and “formula” of St. Cyril of Alexandria, captured in a letter to St. John of Antioch (PG LXXVII), later read at Chalcedon, as Cyril had already reposed, and previously hidden by Dioscorus:
And most importantly, unlike the monophysite Eutyches, Cyril was adamant:
By holding the teachings of Cyril of Alexandria, for centuries, the Armenians & Copts are not “monophysite” followers of Eutyches or “anti-Chalcedonian” in regard to the one incarnate nature of the Word of God. In dialog beginning in the 1950’s, led by the Ecumenical Patriarch, it has been established that no theological impediment to reconciliation exist; only from separation, tradition, and history.
May the memory of the Pope and Patriarch Shenouda be eternal!
Didn’t the formula, Μια φυσις του θεου λογου σεσαρκωμενη, come from Apollinarius, rather than Cyril of Alexandria? Regardless, this formula is hardly adequate and easily leads to many problems. An essential truth of Orthodox Christianity is the humanity of the Incarnate Logos as well as His Divinity. Isn’t it likely that this highly reductive formula leads to a place where “Miaphysitism” and Arianism become two side of the same counterfeit coin? Sarx and anthropos are very, very distinct concepts, obviously, as well as being distinct words. Every living thing is sarx, reductively speaking — perhaps, in some sense, even created angelic beings. In Jesus Christ, God took up residence in human flesh – stress on the human, first of all.
Having said that, though, I also have to admit that I was shocked by Pope Shenouda’s written comments about the Eucharist – if that is an adequate English translation of the sense of his Arabic words. Maybe it’s just me and I’m missing something, but I’m hearing something approaching a mockery of the catholic Orthodox Church understanding of the mystery of the Eucharist that sounds more Islamic than anything Christian, to my ears: Οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες, ψυχικοί, πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες.
The expression mia physis tou theou is definitely that of St. Cyril of Alexandria (commemorated 18 Jan. and 9 June). There’s no “regardless” about it. That it “leads to many problems” may be true; however, many quite Orthodox theological and other statements also easily lead to many problems.
This expression became a battle cry of the Orthodox against the teachings of Nestorius of Constantinople, and the Egyptian Church insisted and insists that any credal and Christological teaching must be true to St. Cyril’s formulation. Of course, the Chalcedonians wrestled with the obvious problem and found a reasonable and logical, though semantically weighted, way out of it that the Egyptian Church insisting on the most literal application of St. Cyril’s words, never has accepted. The recent, modern-day discussions between our sort of Orthodox and what we call the Monophysites, usually announced that today the Copts, etc., see that the whole problem is with semantic differences. Duuuh. It’s always been our opinion, and to state that the Copts, etc., now see that the differences were semantic is to proclaim an utter, outright win on our part and utter defeat of “them,” but never in so many words. When the Monophysite conferees returned home, they were met by the same sort of “resistance of the People” which some imagine defeated (but did not) the Union of Florence and the filioque (it took a Muslim conqueror to finally defeat the Union and the filioque by commanding the consecration and installation of an anti-union Patriarch in Constantinople).
By regardless, your Grace, I meant that whoever first conceived it, whether Cyril or Appollinaris, it’s awkward and inadequate. I’d be grateful if you or M. Stankovich or anyone else could point me to where Cyril used the formula “mia physis tou theou logou sesapxwmenh” in his writings. I’d like to see this in context. In Greek.
The body/soul union is a Semitic, and catholic Orthodox, understanding of human nature. The artificial, semantic distinctions and consequent debates that this sort of formula leads to are philosophical, Neo-Platonic or even Platonic in origin, and not Biblical. What God didn’t assume, He didn’t heal, right?
Is “sesarxwmenh” pronounced “sesarkhomeni” or sesarkhomene?”
Call up a seminary if you want to behold the phrase in its context. I’m not a research assistant.
Nor am I the one the phrase bothers.
And M. Stankovich posted the text in context a little after 8 pm on the 29th, above.
For some reason, didn’t notice that M. Stankovich had broken up one pericope into three blocks and that they all came from the one source referenced. It looked to me like what you might see in a florilegium, a sort of mosaic composed of pieces of text from different sources. M. Stankovich’s points and formatting are sometimes very hard for me to follow, as yours can be. Especially when I’m tired. I myself can be sloppy and unclear and could work harder to avoid it.
Anyway, I don’t mean to pretend that I understand the arcana of Orthodox Christology and heresiology and all of that. I don’t, or at least not for very long. Whatever level of understanding I manage to achieve of these abstract things comes and goes. I’m asking questions, mostly. The thing I’m really interested in is this: where can I find a church where people sincerely are mostly interested in becoming more human and to advance together in their ability to love well, to heal and teach and forgive and include. These theological issues really only matter to me to the extent that they lead to that, and a more abundant lfe. It is somewhat ironic that Orthodox Christians, who purport to possess a tradition that lights the way to theosis, too often don’t seem even to have very successfully tackled the task of becoming loving humans. How can American Christians pretend to love God, who they can’t see, when they are so loathe to love their brother (and sister and neighbor, in all the senses of the words) who they can? My intuition is that one might be well advised to learn to walk before venturing to run. Or, maybe divinity and humanity are closely connected, and we just can’t have one without the other. What an idea!
It’s discouraging, however, to experience so much pettiness and ideology and political delusions, and even hatefulness, among Orthodox Christians. Sometimes it seems that professing Christians haven’t progressed very far at all in 20 centuries. That’s depressing.
Whew! Then that’s settled. Mike’s insistence on seeing Saint Cyril of Alexandria’s doctrinal statement in context has been fulfilled. No one, however, could have imagined that Mike’s questions about that quote were motivated by what he now claims “really” to be interested in, looking for nice people in a nice church.
In my first year after going back on active duty (in the Pentagon) after looking in on SVS for a year, I mentioned in a letter to Father John Meyendorff, my spiritual father in those years, that I was regularly attending the ROCOR church in DC, where Archimandrite Nicholas Peccatoros (descended from “Black Sea Greeks,” was the pastor) because it was so much warmer and friendlier and peaceful. Father John (always sensitive to anyone saying anything positive about (A) ROCOR and (B) Saint Tikhon’s) replied rather sharply to me that one can find warmth and even hugs and kisses in a communist cell!
Well, that shut me up!
The discussions made in the 1950’s that led to such statements as “no theological impediments to communion exist” were made in extreme haste, and all parties have backed away from this idea– especially the Copts and Ethiopians. Moreover, there is not really one common anti-Chalcedonian theology, but rather several local theologies with some things in common and some things different. The Armenians seem to be closest to Chalcedonian theology and also have the strongest claim that their not being in communion with us is due to historical accident– it wasn’t until well into the Middle Ages that they went into communion with the Copts and anti-Chalcedonian Syrians.
In terms of Coptic and Syrian anti-Chalcedonians, it’s very hard to argue that they are “victims of…. isolation.” People like Timothy Aelurus, Severus of Antioch, and Philoxenus of Mabbug weren’t isolated from the Chalcedonian party, but rather deeply engaged in debating them. After the Islamic conquest, we have several centuries where all parties were engaged in theological debate with each other in Arabic on pretty equal footing. There’s a huge corpus of anti-Chalcedonian theological texts from this period that absolutely must be taken into account if we’re going to understand their theology— Copts like Severus ibn al-Muqaffa’, the Awlad al-Assal, Bulus al-Bushi, etc. and Syrians like Abu Ra’ita al-Takriti, Yahya ibn Adi, Isa ibn Zur’a, etc…. And then, Orthodox writers like Theodore Abu Qurra, Eutychius of Alexandria, Peter of Bayt Ra’s, Abdallah ibn al-Fadl, Paul of Antioch, etc…. Without an understanding of each community’s texts in Arabic– the language in which Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians have primarily interacted– then it’s very, very hard to understand our very real Christological differences.
The Orthodox Church in America has sent her condolences. Metropolitan Jonah’s letter starts with ” “The falling-asleep of His Holiness Shenouda, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of All Africa, brings grief and sadness into the hearts of all. The Coptic Orthodox Church grieves for its shepherd. The whole Christian world grieves for a Pope and Patriarch who was steadfast in his witness to the Holy Gospel in Egypt and all of Africa, in North America and around the world.” For the rest, go to http://oca.org/news/headline-news/condolences-sent-to-coptic-church-on-the-repose-of-pope-shenouda-iii
No mention of heresy.
Nor any mention of praying the Trisagion Service for the man… but then I doubt you’d notice much less comment upon that pertinent fact given your own highly questionable actions.
Heracleides, sometimes you sound alot like Diogenes.
How so? Because I don’t automatically genuflect before a select few “Orthodox” clerics whom remain legends in their own minds and whose every utterance is cherished as infallible by their groupies? Or is it because I’ve come to view the OCA (Met. Jonah notwithstanding) as a rather sorry joke? No, wait – Dio holds an absurdly rosy view of the OCA in its present state so that can’t be the connection. In any event, you’re hearing is sadly mistaken – I moved over to ROCOR some months ago and unlike Dio I don’t proclaim it too be dead or anywhere close to it (the AOA on the other hand… well… perhaps Reverend Reardon might want to keep his copy of the Trisagion Service handy after his eventual commemoration of Reverend Louis Farrakhan).
Heracleides,
Have you seen the news lately about what the Muslim extremists are doing in Homs to the Christian population. It is being reported that upwards of 90% of the Christian population have been forcibly evicted by Al Queda affiliated groups who are going door to door wreaking havoc. I think that though the government has been quite brutal in suppressing its’ people, we need to also remember that they are experiencing an attempted revolution and given the same situation here in the US, I have no doubt that our government would (after attempts at using tear gas etc have not worked, etc.) enacted martial law and done the exact same thing that Assad is doing. You think it can’t happen here? Think again.
The uprising is proving itself more and more by the day not to be one of Democratic origins, but rather of the Sunni majority (and also with an extremist bent in many places) who would like to see secular law overturned in favor of Sharia, which would put Christians who have already fled from other parts of the Middle East to what they thought was a safe haven in Syria, in a very precarious and life threatening situation. I think it’s much more complicated than “that meany Assad is killing people in the streets. He needs to be overthrown by any means necessary.
Now does that mean I support Assad, or think that he is just swell. No. I just think we need to stay out of their business. Look how well our attempted CIA intervention in Iran went over and the blow back that we are experiencing even today.
That is just my humble opinion though, be free to correct me.
It is not only a inner Syrian affair, they caught some French “advisors” among the “rebels”….
.. and no, I don’t “love” Assad either.
We need to continue to keep all those involved and affected in our prayers and for a speedy end to the conflict. May the Lord have mercy and may he come again soon, but not so soon that we can not repent.
Benjamin (et al.), have I even once defended the so-called rebels? (More like rabble in my estimation.) Please reference such an occasion. You won’t be able too do so, because I haven’t. Not once. Period. Why? Because I really don’t care one way or another who wins the present conflict as I view either ‘side’ as likely to either continue the present evil -or- to produce a new loathsome state.
That said, what I have openly rejected is the Orthodox Church allowing itself to be used as an organ of Assad’s regime to further his propaganda efforts, which is exactly what the Dictator has done with the Despot and he in turn with his lackey. Clerics allowing the Mukhabarat to use their good names to perpetuate the rule of a butcher strikes me as indefensible and leads me to believe they are either shameless supporters of the present evil or useful idiots. Or perhaps both. Take your pick.
In any event, I refuse to embrace the (hypothetical) lesser of two evils for convenience sake. The old-saw that I am not living in Syria and therefore have no right too a voice in the matter is nonsensical once the Butcher of Damascus utilizes his Orthodox minions beyond the borders of his police state. I can and will speak up (yes, with calculated over-the-top language) as the actions of Bp. Philip and his minister of propaganda, the Rev. Reardon, seek to sway me and all Orthodox believers in this country. That the ancient Patriarchates are willing participants in their dhimmitude does not mean that their servitude must and should be embraced in the New World. In fact, quite the opposite and I for one will resist such efforts no matter how unpopular it might be in some quarters.
Heracleides, I appreciate your clarity.
“That said, what I have openly rejected is the Orthodox Church allowing itself to be used as an organ of Assad’s regime to further his propaganda efforts, which is exactly what the Dictator has done with the Despot and he in turn with his lackey.”
I’m not sure why Assad’s regime should not use whatever facts are favorable to that regime’s purposes, or how hiding such facts would aid Justice, Truth, etc.
There are many many people in the prisons of the Islamic Republic of Iran who were put there for “Allowing themselves to be used by the enemies of the Republic.” Do we wish to emulate the Ayatollahs in repressing the public expressions of Antiochene Orthodox leaders because those expressions may be used by Assad? And what about those that Heracleides calls “the rabble?” Should the Antiochene leaders be silent and thus risk being “used by the rabble?”
No. The Antiochene Orthodox leaders should speak out. I would, were I an Antiochene leader. But is it necessary for them to be so excessive in praise of President Assad?
I address all posters here!
Don’t you think it is enough already with this stupid denigrating and sudden death-announcements of Orthodox Churches? Don’t you think the jurisdictional nonsense in NA isn’t sad enough? Do you have to pour constantly oil into the fire?
Any one inquiring into the Orthodox Church for a possible harbour coming here is definitely turned off by this, now really getting boring and mind numbingly juvenile, pissing competition…
These exchanges are neither satirical nor witty, they are now becoming vile…
It is close to Holy Week, maybe we all should do some prayers asking for the gift of humility, the love of our brothers and the unity of the church…
Thank you brother Joseph. I wholeheartedly agree. I pray the Lord will grant us all Many Years to repent.
Heracleides proclaims, “perhaps Reverend Reardon might want to keep his copy of the Trisagion Service handy after his eventual commemoration of Reverend Louis Farrakhan).”
Oops, I have to turn the other cheek once again, it seems.
Happy Lent, everybody.
Father Hans, are you a veteran of service in the U.S. armed forces? Were you close to the Antiochene Archdiocese’s Chancellor before Charles Ajalat? Is that what you meant by two queens cackling? Just asking.
And Dioscorus, eh.
This is all very interesting, especially in light of what has been happening to the heterodox Coptic Christians, and now to those in Syria. Do you know by any chance the predominant theological affinities of the now exiled heterodox Christians of Iraq, if it’s possible to generalize meaningfully about them?
Yes, I can imagine, and this is why I learned (the elements of) Greek years ago. I wanted to get away from the questionably selective quotations and dubious translations in secondary literature and into the context of primary sources. Quite an eye opener for me, too. I wish I’d looked for a competent Hebrew tutor willing to teach me, when I was younger and could have learned a new language more easily. I think I’m too old a dog now to learn that particular new trick, but I do deeply regret it. I have no doubt I’d have been in for even more eye opening. Ditto for Arabic. Do you mean that Dioscorus was read only in florilegia by Syrians, or both Syrians and Copts?
Thank you very much for your insights. This is fascinating and revealing.
In Egypt Syria, and Iraq all Christians are suffering, whether they’re Orthodox or heterodox— over half of the Christians in Syria belong to the Orthodox Church, after all…..
Yes, and many Muslims, too. Wars, rumors of wars, arms dealing, high food prices, commodity speculation and many other consequences of unconscionable foreign meddling are all much more directly to blame for the brutal sufferings in the region than any confessional differences in theology, no doubt. Which is as much as to say, we are more than a little to blame, too. We Americans. I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. I’m deepy ashamed of the major role played in this spreading conflagration by US foreign and trade policy.
Mike Myers: Why not forget your age and take up Hebrew and/or Arabic and/or Greek? I had some Latin (very little, but I remember it all) in high school, majored in German, but also took Ancient Greek and Modern Greek in college, began studying Russian at SVS and later on my own, along with Church Slavonic. I didn’t realize how much I missed being actively engaged in language studies until a couple years ago when I began my study of Persian (called Farsi in Persian, but not in English just as German is called Deutsch in German, but not in English) a couple years ago. I’m 79 and will be 80 in November. One of my favorite sayings these days is “Oh, to be seventy again!” Oh, the Greek and Russian alphabets seemed so formidable when I began, but they are like kindergarten toys relative to computers, when compared to Arabic/Persian alphabets!!!! I bet if you advertised for a Hebrew teacher you’d hear from one or two that might do it for very little or nothing.
Your Grace, I studied Attic Greek in my thirties for a couple of years at UC, and German im hoch Schule. I used to be able to read NT Koine easily enough, rusty now, but it would all come back. It’s like riding a bike, you never forget, really. My Mom was sentenced to all 12 years of Catholic school and had four years of Latin there, though I don’t know how much she ever remembered. I’ll ask next time I call.
I’m quite impressed and heartened to hear that you can learn a language at 80, but then I know how spry and alert you are, so I’m not too surprised. I’ve seen you a couple of times at Holy Virgin Mary in Silver Lake, although I’m sure you wouldn’t know me. We never met formally. I’ve been meaning to ask you about Father Michael, who I miss, and his lovely, charming, and very sweet wife Susanne. I understand they went back to his home in Pittsburgh. I think that might have been her neck of the wood, too? I like that church very much — speaking of nice people in a nice church. But it’s a long way from Irvine. I’m sure I’ll get back there though, maybe during Holy Week.
The Arabic alphabet is daunting indeed. Hebrew letters are a cinch. I love how meaningful the language is on so many levels, even in its orthography. If I could find a tutor, that would be superb. I’d certainly find the time to study it. You’ve encouraged me to rethink this.
Oh, when I first moved here from DC, I was horribly jealous of those Californians who had been able to take German in public school (In *****der******** Schule, Mike!), We only had Spanish and Latin in our suburban Detroit high school. Who was your teacher? (I ask because one of our parishioners here, of Russia and Estonian nationality, taught German for many years in public schools around Southern Californa.). I’ll convey your kind words about Father Michael to him. We’re in frequent contact via email and Facebook, while both his sons are now sharing a house in Pasadena. Yes, Susanne was as you describe her, a good representative of 2nd or 3rd generation “Ukedom.”
The parish has changed enormously with the arrival of an insecure convert born in Yorba Linda with a PhD in history who has decided the Church has lacked professorial teaching for, lo, these many years. He recently informed the parish in a parish bulletin article called ‘On ‘Holy Russia” , that Communism originated in Russia and it was formulated by Lenin (he teaches at Loyola Marymount and lives in CORONA, so he doesn’t have the time to do anything much but bestow his learning on us all) !!
Sure…Karl Marxsky and Friedrich Engelsoff, bogatyrs, both of them! If you’re even in Los Angeles, drop in on the big Liberal Temple on Wilshire or the big Synagogue on the eastern end of downtown Westwood and ask the Rabbi about the possibilities. [Irvine—I associate it with the semi-iconoclastic Greek Church there. Is Father Stephen still the Rector? I met him long ago in Seattle before he went into Orange County exile at the behest of late Bishop Anthony, the ever-memorable pistol.] Go, go, Go!
Nicht “in dem [im] Hochschule,” Dativ? Been a long time. I was born and raised in Ohio, a “California convert” myself (33 years now almost to the day). My first German teacher’s name I can’t recall, strangely. The second was Mrs. SomethingItalian — that’ll come to me, probably ~4 a.m. tonight; this was in Mansfield, OH. Early to mid-seventies. It’s pretty shocking what’s become of the California educational systems, once among the best on Earth, now a smoking ruin by comparison.
I’m very sorry to hear about the much altered atmosphere in your gem of a parish. I’ve only been back once since Fr. Michael and Suzanne left. Here’s hoping things will perk up again soon. Please give my best to Cornel, who may remember me. A few other names are escaping me. Your story about the new prof is pretty funny. I bet that “lesson” went over well! Corona, eh. Lots of driving for him, on top of residing in CORONA. Two counts of great ascetism there, in my book. May God richly bless him for it, and illuminate him in the discipline of intellectual history, too!
Yes, the very cordial and patient Father Steve is the Pastor and Dean Langis, the soul of diplomacy, hospitality and kindness (and beautiful manners) is his Pastoral Assistant. Young Father Stephen Karcher was reassigned, to Reno, last year. More icons are coming! The iconostasis-lite remains, though. I visit St. Paul’s from time to time, it’s not my parish as such, of course, since I’m still a Papist technically (badly lapsed). That status may change one of these days, perhaps soon. In spite of what some claim here, I love the Orthodox Church and feel mostly at home in it — at least in theory!
Mike, Mike, Mike! The German word for school is die Schule. Remember “die”? it’s the feminine definite article. In the dative case, “die” becomes “der” NOT dem. In DER Schule.
Yes ‘im” is the acceptable contraction of “in dem”, and “dem” is the MASCULINE definite article in the dative. Im Haus, In der Schule. Im Garten. In der Post, zum Haus, zur Schule
Again, it’s been a long time. I don’t have opportunity to use it, so it’s lapsed. Forgive me. I do remember the declensions, sorta. Just forgot that Schule was feminine.
Where is the now Fr. Joseph? I remember him as a deacon, enthusiastically directing the congregation in singing the Creed, his face shining.
Father Yousuf (Joseph) Rassam is now the rector of St. Innocent Church, Tarzana. A third, I believe, child is on the way for him and Rachel. I think he’s posted here occasionally, no, George? He used to stick his toe into the disease-laden waters of the now defunct ocanewsorg swamp occasionally as well. A room in the British Museum is named after his Great Uncle, an Assyrian archeologist.
ONE nice thing about Persian is that it has no gender and no “cases” and very rare use of ‘number”.
They have the same word, “u,” for he, she, him, or her. If one is talking about a man or a woman this can only be determined through context. The Greeks were ludicrously inept at transliterating Persian. They can’t pronounce any sh or ch or zh or j sounds; in other words they could not say “shibboleth” (see O.T.).. When they heard “Khshayarsha”, they made “Xerxes” out of it! When they heard “Kurush” they made Cyrus out of it. “Kambujiya” became Cambyses!!
Samn! The articles by Minas Monir you linked to are very, very interesting as well as being easy to read and understandable. If anyone wants to learn more about these issues, please take the time to read them. So much information. I was told the old party line, too, so I was surprised to find out what was said at Chambesy by Fr. John Romanides, and what was said and wasn’t said by the leaders to the people, and how the resulting statements told to the people were indeed made in haste.
From the article:
“In 2005, a Coptic delegation was invited to Moscow to discuss the project of moving on to a more successful dialogue with Russia. However, the disappointing paper presented by Metropolitan Beshoy led to a delay and reduced the interest in having a professional dialogue. There is a will now to carry on but under the supervision of the Moscow Patriarchate, which I’m quite sure will avoid the mistakes of the previous dialogue that led to this dead end.”
Would positive results from a professional dialogue with the Moscow Patriarchate help with the on-the-ground reality the Coptic churches and their people are facing in the most dangerous parts of the world? What can we do to help them?
Reposting the links:
http://www.pravmir.com/article_1052.html
http://www.pravmir.com/article_946.html
What the Copts are in need of right now is a degree of diplomatic support that no church, not even the Vatican, would be able to arrange for them. One of the things we most need to be doing to help them is to make the dangers facing Middle Eastern Christians more of a public issue in the US. Both political parties have done all they can, whether from ignorance or malice, to create a Middle East without Christians, and this needs to change.
On the level of theological dialogue, there are two temptations that need to be avoided. The first is to approach them with the kind of rhetoric that is derived from Old Calendarist discourse, “graceless sacraments” and all this sort of thing. I’ve read a great deal of patristic texts about the anti-Chalcedonians, and this type of language is alien to the fathers!
On the other hand, we can’t treat them in the colonialist and patronizing manner that Roman Catholics often use with us. We can’t just say, “We all really believe the same thing after all…” Instead, we must tell them that we have enough respect for their tradition that we are willing to take it seriously as theology. We are willing to take seriously our fathers and theirs, and make a mutual attempt to understand how each of our traditions has historically understood the other, and what the motivations were for the positions of our respective fathers. It’s only through this kind of discussion, grounded in mutual love, but with a willingness to take both traditions seriously, that any kind of theological progress can be made. This is exactly the kind of real dialogue that has been avoided historically. I would point out that Fr. Romanides is especially to blame in this, since his reasoning was so strongly clouded by his own idiosyncratic historical theories and anti-Roman polemic.
Samni, I don’t want your comments to get lost, so will reply with a few thoughts for now.
You wrote, “There is a will now to carry on but under the supervision of the Moscow Patriarchate, which I’m quite sure will avoid the mistakes of the previous dialogue that led to this dead end.”
The situation is getting increasingly dangerous for Middle East Christian as time goes by. It sounds like Moscow is key. For some reason I am making a connection between unity and safety. In other words, if there is a real effort toward, and even success (!) in achieving unity with the “anti_Chalcedonians” more eyes will be turned on them, and that means greater awareness and a desire to do what we can to help the plight of all Christians in the Middle East. Will decades pass before they get together again?
Are the American Orthodox Church leaders doing anything to encourage this relationship of “theological dialogue” you speak of? We are concerned for our brothers and sisters in the Middle East, and yet we feel we can’t do much to help them.
If only Fr. Yussuf would return and chat with you, samn!. You’re a bright light on this blog.
Samni,
It’s true that this needs to change, but what can be done to change it? Should Orthodox leaders be doing more? What can the people do? There are quite a few safe and prosperous Orthodox leaders out there… what can they do?
You know, in modern times, being united to a larger, more influential church has not helped persecuted Christians politically. Of the million or so Christians who have had to leave Iraq, most were Chaldean Catholics in communion with Rome. Of the two million or so Christians currently in danger in Syria, about half are Orthodox Christians, and another quarter are Catholics. Their connections to the wider Christian world have been only of limited help- among American Christian leaders, only Metropolitan Philip has spoken out seriously on their behalf. That said, Catholic (CNEW) and Protestant (Barnabas Fund) charities abroad have been the most visibly active groups in trying to provide help to Syrian Christians, especially in Homs, where the majority of Christians are members of the “Syriac Orthodox” (Jacobite) Church. I don’t think their being in communion with us (or Rome) would’ve led to more being done. On the diplomatic level, Russia has been essential to supporting the current regime– and let’s not delude ourselves, the preservation of Christianity in Syria depends on the preservation of the regime– but this support has to do with wider geopolitcal concerns and not with the shared faith of Russian and Syrian Christians. There’s a conceivable world where Russia might use its connections to Middle Eastern Christians as a reason to increase its presence in the region, but we’re not in that world yet, and that would only be possible in those countries that are not American satellites. As long as Egypt remains heavily subsidized by the US, no other diplomatic issues matter.
As for what American bishops might do to help Christians in the Middle East, it would be good if they could speak with a louder and more united voice about their plight. It would be good if more pressure was put on American political leaders, especially those who claim to be ‘Christian’ to do more tangibly. But also, bishops, clergy, scholars, and laity, we need to do what we can to be more familiar with the Christians of the region (of all denominations) and build relationships with them.
Samni wrote on March 31, 2012 at 9:01 am: ‘You know, in modern times, being united to a larger, more influential church has not helped persecuted Christians politically. That said, Catholic (CNEW) and Protestant (Barnabas Fund) charities abroad have been the most visibly active groups in trying to provide help to Syrian Christians, especially in Homs, where the majority of Christians are members of the “Syriac Orthodox” (Jacobite) Church.”
I can say from first-hand experience that the response of Protestant charities and outreaches to the poor and needy in America and worldwide has been very good, and sometimes fantastic. The dedication, sacrifice, zeal (in a good way), determination, willingness to give up all in order to go and help, it’s all there, with people young and old and from many backgrounds. And these groups have grown by leaps and bounds at times. You would think GOD had His hand in it! This is true of many Protestant ministry oriented organizations I can name and have worked with. This is why I say that with good leadership there can be change within the American Orthodox Community towards doing more and reaching out more, as we were commanded to do. Of course i realize many Orthodox are reaching out. But our leadership at the top should be doing more than coming up with charts and meetings and conventions and statistics of church growth and talking in order to inspire the people to give more and do more for the sake of the Gospel rather than growing the Church with numbers.
“On the diplomatic level, Russia has been essential to supporting the current regime– and let’s not delude ourselves, the preservation of Christianity in Syria depends on the preservation of the regime– but this support has to do with wider geopolitcal concerns and not with the shared faith of Russian and Syrian Christians.”
It’s so difficult to navigate those waters when thinking about how bad the situation is. People have linked to articles and web sites before, do you know off hand of a web site where we can read about the situation in Syria it to help us understand better?
As for what American bishops might do to help Christians in the Middle East, it would be good if they could speak with a louder and more united voice about their plight. It would be good if more pressure was put on American political leaders, especially those who claim to be ‘Christian’ to do more tangibly.
Well, they are going to have to start working that out. I can imagine it would not be easy for the bishops to unite with one voice, but you never know, maybe someone who can do something will read your words and start the ball rolling.
But also, bishops, clergy, scholars, and laity, we need to do what we can to be more familiar with the Christians of the region (of all denominations) and build relationships with them.
Samn! I see the links on your blog where we can go to read more and stay informed. I’ll bookmark your web site.
Thanks again!
So, it’s actually fairly difficult to get a comprehensive view of what’s going on in Syria with reference only to the American and British press. Because reports coming out of Syria are so contradictory– and the American press only runs stories from rebel sources– the French and Arabic media are pretty essential for keeping up with what’s going on. On my own blog, I’ve been limiting myself to translating and linking to articles directly related to what’s happening to Orthodox Christians there. For a wider view of the situation in Syria, I would recommend following websites:
http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/ (Absolutely essential. By a professor at the University of Oklahoma who specializes in Syrian politics. Tries to be neutral between the regime and the rebels, and is not afraid to publish and link to articles critical of both groups.)
http://onsyria.wordpress.com/ (A new blog that is anti-regime and liberal. The first and so far only post is a great map of the various pro- and anti-regime groups and ideologies in Syria today. It’s accurate, even if I personally disagree with the author’s view of what will and should happen in the future.)
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/ (Coverage from the Chinese news service Xinhua.Just as pro-regime as the American press is anti-regime. Good for counterbalancing American media bias.)
http://rt.com/news/today/ (Like Xinua, but Russian. Also a good counterbalance to American media.)
http://english.al-akhbar.com/ (Lebanese, secular and pro-Syria. Anti-American, anti-Saudi, anti-Aljazeera)
http://english.al-akhbar.com/ (Lebanese and anti-Syrian. Now owned by the wildly pro-Saudi, anti-Syrian Hariri family. Rami Khouri’s columns are especially good, even if I personally find him to have a hopelessly naive streak).
http://www.aljazeera.com/ (Use with extreme caution. Owned by the Qatari royal family, and so their Sunni supremacism has been blatantly evident in their coverage of Syria. That said, Nir Rosen’s reports have been quite good.)
I replied with some links, but apparently they’re stuck in moderation……
Got them. This is so helpful.
Samn!, I want to give thanks to God through you for the sublime sermon of Met. Ephrem, given on the Third Sunday of the Fast.
Samn! remarks, “Fr. Romanides is especially to blame in this, since his reasoning was so strongly clouded by his own idiosyncratic historical theories and anti-Roman polemic.”
Thank you, Samn! This has always been my view of Romanides.
A close and respected friend recently remarked, “I love Romanides, because he is so clear.”
I quietly thought to myself, “Yes, if he weren’t so clear, I might give him a pass.”
Fr Patrick, I tried to read Romanides several years ago but I too was somewhat put off by his strident anti-Western bias. I may be wrong, but I think that others in Orthodoxy are not as extremist as he.
Jason, can I ask again if you’re a convert to Orthodoxy, and if so, your previous “denomination” if any and how long ago you converted? I share Fr. Patrick’s sociological interest in this.
Jason inquires, “Is there a certain hypothesis or theory that you or Fr. Patrick would like to share?”
In my case, the investigation has not yet reached the stage of hypothesis.. I am still gathering data.
I have noticed trends, however.
“Sociological interest” in what, exactly, Mike? Is there a certain hypothesis or theory that you or Fr. Patrick would like to share? Or, based on my responses, are you interested in offering a diagnosis regarding what ailments or baggage must lay beneath my concern about the Copts and other Non-Orthodox being referred to or spoken of as though they are members of the Church?
I’m sure you understand that one data point has little statistical value, so perhaps you can share here what you have observed, accross a wider spectrum, for the interest of all?
Well, to tell you the truth, and speaking just for myself, when I see all the war-loving, hate-filled, deluded, covetous, uncharitable, materialistic, etc. etc. people who are “members of the Church,” and even the many gullible, easily propagandized, ignorant, petty, externals-obsessed ones, I confess I don’t get too bent out of shape about prayers for the heterodox in the Divine Liturgy. This kind of discussion makes me want to hurl, quite frankly. I’m just weird, evidently, in that I think Christians have more important issues to be zealous, and repent, about.
The one data point that your background would contribute would indeed be of minor statistical value. Maybe it’s just idle curiosity on my part. I don’t have a theory, really. I was being glib. Anyway, I do not mean to suggest that any of the properties in the first half of the sentence apply to you, of course. I don’t know you. I’m sure you’re a good guy, relatively speaking. I was just saying.
And I was just wondering.
A less charitable person than my humble, so humble, self might characterize Mike Myers’ latest as idle chatter, based on his disowning there being anything “serious” in what he has so far contributed. I never could.
Your Grace, alas, I am occasionally not too sure just what it is you’re talking about. No doubt that’s all my fault, though. Have I really disowned anything “serious” in my contributions so far? Not clear on your meaning. Could you be more explicit, please, for my edification?
As for “war-loving” Christians, I take it you mean Jim Wallis and his ilk who were strangely silent during Clinton’s bombing of Serbia.
I’d settle for people who loathed modern mass warfare, could see where it comes from, and opposed it and its prerequisites very loudly. And also, fewer petty prigs — but that’s probably asking too much. I don’t think I’m all that fastidious, really.
I assure you that I most definitely would NOT have wanted to live in Alexandria, in particular, in the fourth or fifth centuries. Would not have wanted St. Cyril as a Bishop, either. Or many of these other dinosaur Fathers, for that matter. I’ll refrain from relating what I know about this sordid period — or what I could easily refresh my memory about, and then relate. Reminds me of what they say about making sausage: you really don’t want to know. Unfortunately, I’ve visited this particular factory. I’ll probably keep what I saw to myself.
I recant this somewhat unfair dishing of some of the Fathers and of Cyril. It was a very different time – knowledge and I hope charitableness has increased dramatically since. Due in part to the blessed efforts of the best of the Fathers.
Still, I certainly would not have wanted to live in Alexandria in these centuries. I suppose there were plenty of even worse places to be born at the time. But I’m allergic to bloody-minded fanatics of any party, and this city was a world capital of murderous fanaticism.
Oh, Alexandria was not all quarrels and bashing people Hypatia or St. Athanasius, etc. In fact, Clement of Alexandria is alleged to have asked one of his mentors (after he had been approached about being made a Bishop) how he could be ordained when he could not possibly accept some things conventionally taught in the churches. He said he could never, for example, accept the idea that the world was created in six calendar days. His mentor told him that as long as he did not TEACH that the world was not created in six calendar days, he would not be disqualified for his private belief. (It seems to me that St. Basil the Great may have said something disparaging about the idea of the six-day Creation which might have offended Michelle Bachman, etc. as well.) As for my remarks about disowning anything serious, this was an expression of pique at the blatant moving of the goal posts when corrected. It was all about a (horrible mistranscription of) the phrase of St. Cyril of Jerusalem until that was solved not exactly as Mike had suggested, at which point, the REAL concern was revealed to be the atrocious behavior of Orthodox Christian interlocutors, as exemplified here.
I could have printed it out in Greek letters, I guess. If by horrible mistranscription you mean: sesarxwmenh, that’s exactly how the word σεσαρκωμενη is transliterated into Latin (all ASCII) characters conventionally, by NT scholars anyway. Called the Beta Code.
Anyway, the substantive point I meant to suggest was, it struck me that while the formula, evidently coined by Cyril (although I vaguely recall something about it appearing in Apollinaris’s stuff first, tho maybe that’s mistaken), excludes “Nestorians” (Nestorius probably wasn’t a “Nestorian”), it’s also a password phrase that could let in Arians and “Monophysites” and “Miaphysites” just fine. I think. By itself it was just askin’ for trouble. But what do I know.
I ‘m perfectly capable of behaving atrociously, too, as an interlocutor. Far from blameless there.
Cool anecdote about Clement. I hope it’s not just apocryphal.
I should have thought that scholars would universally use the Library of Congress or the British Library’s system of transliteration— or, in extremis, the international phonetic alphabet. But…Beta Code? Egads.
Yes, for foreign character keyboards, a misnamed “phonetic” keyboard layout does, indeed, use the Beta Code to assist a typist. For example, even though the Slavonic letter “Sha’ (which is taken from the Hebrew alphabet) is usually assigned to the “w” key on an English keyboard configured to produce Cyrillic, the letter is, nevertheless, not sounded like “W”. No doubt, the same system works for the Omega, although it, too, is to be transliterated into (long) “o.” Likewise, the back guttural consonant, called, in English transliteration “chi” and NOT “Xi”, is to be transliterated as “kh,’ or “ch” even though a Beta coded keyboard would use the “x” key for the sound in both Greek and Russian. Transliterations produce corresponding SOUNDS, not corresponding shapes. The purpose of the Beta Code is to produce letters in one language that look the most like letters in the target (keyboard, in this case) language. It’s very handy mnemonically when one wishes to learn to type another alphabet quickly. I doubt very much if you can find any transliteration of a Greek New Testament text, even one in the wretched “koine’ (or Pidjin) Greek, by any scholar using the Beta Code to do so. Your “sesarkwmenh” is not a conventional or scholarly transliteration at all: it’s a special code to be used when typing on a Latin alphabet keyboard configured to produce foreign (Greek, in this case) characters.
Why hope the Clement anecdote is not true? That sort of comment, like the one “suspecting” that Saint Cyril’s saying very well might be, rather, one of Apollinarius’s, gratuitously gives rise to all the nastiness you just recently excoriated!
I say to myself of a morning, “Oh, to be just seventy again!” You claim to be an oldster. What age range are we talking about?
Good transliteration, as well, should work “both ways.” How would one transliterate “h” into Greek? The conventional transliteration (in Attic) for “h’, is the convex ‘breathing sign” put over an initial vowel….one couldn’t use it any place else in a word. “W” must be worked around by using the combination “omicron-upsilon” To transliterate “water” one would use (concave breathing superscript) omicron-ypsilon, tau, epsilon, nu. “sesarxwmehh” looks a little like the transliteration of a Persian word which can end in the consonant “h” and which entirely omits transcribing
many vowel sounds.
Greek SIGMA-ALPHA-RHO-KSI (NOT CHI)—English “body, ” is transliterated universally, even by NT scholars, into English as S-A-R-X, while Greek SIGMA-ALPHA-RHO-CHI would be universally transliterated into English as S-A-R-KH. In every case, the letter Ksi is transliterated as English “x.” English “X” is NEVER ever pronounced as anything but “ks”. Greek Alpha-Rho- Chi, is transliterated as “arch” or “arkh.”
I said, “I hope it’s not just apocryphal,” your Grace. Meaning, I hope it’s true, historical, was really said, actually happened.
Well, didn’t exactly say that either. Apollinaris came first, and my dim memory was of reading somewhere that a Patristic scholar claimed these particular words appeared first in his writings, in a different context and with a very different and deeply heretical import. I would prefer to stop beating this particular dead horse, if you don’t mind. Essentially, I just wanted to demur a bit from M. Stankovich’s bolded emphasis on it, as if it were some panacea communicating unambiguous, Orthodox Christology. It’s an awkward, ambiguous, inadequate and problematic formula. Many Fathers thought so, and said so. I don’t think the point is controversial in the least.
I’m a young-at-heart 55. The memory among other things ain’t what it used to be.
Scholars, and pretentious twits like me, generally use the Beta Code in e-mails and such, mostly. As I did here, because I was too lazy to find the Greek text online. Smooth = ) rough = (, xi = C. I did omit the acute over the eta — again, because I’m a sloppy, lazy beast. Mea maxima culpa.
Well, unlike Mike, I’m not privy to the statistics on scholars’ use of the Beta Code in their “emails and such”, but “mostly” oils up the ways to an honorable exit from the claim that there’s anything scholarly about that awful non-transliteration of the Greek word, conventionally transliterated by scholars in published documents as sesarkhomene , but no NT scholar in his right mind would transliterate an epsilon to the English/Latin letter “h” in anything meant for publication.
Yes, I, too, can get a kick out of the facetious, mocking use of that Beta Code-based system in personal emails to produce an “in” joke for others using a qwerty keyboard to type (but not transliterate) Greek, even if the result was something that looks like Chaldean.
I never imagined that Stankovich’s bold-faced repetition of the phrase Saint Cyril is most famous for having used so decisively in Council was a “panacea” of any kind. What are the multitudinous ills it would have cured? A panacea would cure everything, would it not?
And it is not Stankovich at all, but the members of the Council who gave the saying its luster. Mike’s beef seems to be with them, rather than Stankovich, no? I feel that the Orthodox of that day would have bold-faced the saying if they could have, and the idea of “panacea’ would have been far from their thoughts. And it also became a watchword saying for the so-called Monophysites or, to make a joke, their Alfa and Wmega.
Your Grace, with respect to conventions in what is meant for publication, it just had not occurred to me that Monomakhos was the Parnassus of literary or theological scholarship and that I was submitting to it a deathless monograph destined for the ages of ages. The Beta Code distinguishes omicron from omega and epsilon from eta, and I’m big on meaningful distinctions, so I employed it. And on the subject of distinctions, incidentally, I’m sorry that so many of the distinct vocalizations of the various vowels and diphthongs in Attic have fallen away in modern, spoken Greek. I think the language would sound livelier, more musical and poetic, if this hadn’t occurred.
I must stubbornly insist on the historicity and truth of the fact that that formula was objected to as awkward and inadequate by many of the Fathers, including St. Athanasius, although I am not going to bother taking the time to demonstrate it here.
MIke, I would hope that any fact was truthful, and that the phrase, “a true fact” would be nonsensically redundant. In my poor reading on the topic of monophysitism vs chalcedonianism, I have NEVER read that Saint Athanasius or any other of the Fathers, objected to Saint Cyril’s formula as presented to the cheers of the fathers of the Council. Would you have the time ( I’ve got about three decades on your “oldness”) to let me know which Holy Fathers objected to the formula as awkward and inadequate, and where they and Saint Athanasius did so. I ask that because I, too, insist that your assertion MUST be a fact (and as such, historical). Just point to the history that makes that fact historical, please.
Oh, I forgo! , That Code B provides a way (because that’s the whole idea of that code) to make machines distinguish between omega and omicron: between eta and epsilon, is not even debatable. However scholarly TRANSLITERATION (which is NOT the purpose of Code B at all, since transliteration per se Changes Letters and Code B provides a way to imitate them for the purposes of computer input—it produces, in fact, a synthetic machine alphabet.
Yes, Code B, in order to instruct the machine to print the Russian letter sounded as “sh”, uses the letter “w”. If one wanted to transliterate the Russian word, spelled Kah, Ah,Sha.Ah in Cyrillic, one would come up with “kasha.” In Code B, though, since there is no letter “sha” on the qwerty or other latin alphabet computer, one would hit the “w” key in order to get the machine to produce that Cyrillic character. That latter process is NOT transliteration. Yes, if one wanted to make an illiterate typist produce Kah, Ah, Sha, Ah in sequence, one would instruct that typist to look for the letters that look like, respectively and hit them in sequence: “kawa.” But if you’d tell a NT Scholar or any other scholar that “kawa” is the transliteration of a Russian word for sweetened boiled buckwheat, I think you might get a concerned stare.
Nothing really “wrong” with your “sesarxwmenh”. You should just have labelled it Machine Code for the Greek word transliterated by scholars as “sesarkhomene.’
This article includes cites from the Fathers and modern Patristics scholars. All I have time for now, your Grace.
Thanks, MIke. Not the first time I’ve come across Minas Monir. He used to contribute to some discussions on the Indiana List, if I’m not mistaken.
He’s a student at Ruskin U., located in Cambridge, England, and a prolific free-lance writer. I’m not surprised at his use of the the Code B “rendition” of Saint Cyril’s phrase. There’s no hurry, and thanks again for this. I’ll have to get out my old Meyendorff “Byzantine Theology” if I can find it. Seems to me Father John discussed this sort of thing. Maybe Ware did, as well?
Incidentally, before I forget it, once, at lunch, Jaroslav Pelikan said to me that Photios of Constantinople was, in his opinion, someone one would not like to meet at night in the streets of Constantinople!!!! (We’d been discussing Umberto Eco’s latest novel at that time, which took place in Byzantium: Pelikan considered Eco to be a close personal friend.)
You know, someday you’re going to have to accept the Church’s doctrines in their totality,–or not. One major step to apostasy is by rejecting and/or being dismissive about the Fathers. Then again, if you’re so much more aware than them, you can always take up your disagreements with them when you go to Heaven.
George, I hope I’m sincerely struggling to accept the Holy Orthodox Church’s essential doctrines in their totality. It was glib and unjust to write “dinosaur Fathers,” and I retract it, again. I had in mind mainly the heretical ideas and unbalanced tendencies in some Fathers, and also those who at times fell inordinately under the sway of Plato and neo-Platonism and of their own innovations and pseudo-gnosis. I should have written: the dinosaurs among some of the Fathers: which is to say, the old Adam and his carnal psyche and its egoism, still present in the Fathers, as it is in me, and perhaps in you and most of us. That which made them susceptible to confusing the pruning tools of Greek philosophical concepts and terminology for the dogma and kerygma of the Holy Church of Christ.
When I read St. Ephrem the Syrian, especially his “Hymns on Paradise,” all those Hellenic and Hellenistic cobwebs blow away in the gentle winds of the Spirit of God, and I find my mind is in sight of Paradise. I wish I could read him in the original Syriac.
Well, then, MIke! I’ll bet you could find a Syriac teacher without TOO much trouble, if you give up on Hebrew. I beleive there’s a sizable Iraqi Christian community or two in California, besides the big one in Detroit–“Chaldeans” and so forth. Many native speakers of Aramaic. How about that language?. Oh, you’ve got so many possibilities at your young age!
Thanks again for your kind encouragement. I should act on it. Please pray for me, your Grace.
When I was a child I had a relationship with my father, though I couldn’t have told you much of the ‘dogma’ of my father -what color his eyes were, how tall he was (He was just “big” to me), when or where he was born, what he did while he was at work, what his level of education was, whether or not he served in the armed forces, and the list of things I neither knew nor understood about my father goes on…. Nevertheless, I knew him – personally. To this day there are doubtless many things I do not know about my father, but still I know him.
Even though I knew next to nothing about my father, yet if a stranger came to me claiming to be my father I would have recognized instantly that he was an imposter. I couldn’t have explained to anyone exactly how; I would have “just known” because I knew my father.
My mother could have explained that the imposter’s eyes were brown while my father’s are blue; that he was too tall to be my father; that he didn’t know my father’s correct birth date; that his hands didn’t bear the marks of his vocation; etc. In other words, my mother had far more knowledge of the ‘dogma’ of my father than I did. Yet even she would have relied far less on dogma to identify an imposter than she would on the simple fact that she knew my father.
This is emphatically NOT an argument against dogma – quite the contrary. But it does help to illustrate the limits – and even in some respects the scandal – of dogma. That we require dogmas demonstrates how little we actually know God. There are, I suspect, many who know God while knowing very little about Him – even perhaps while having some mistaken notions about Him. Others know every detail of true doctrine, yet know little of God Himself. If our Orthodox Faith teaches us anything it is that the knowledge of God is personal, that knowledge of God comes not from knowing about Him, but from knowing Him through love. In fact, the more we know Him the more we realize how little we know about Him.
Dogmas are important. But they are little more than road signs that, if followed, ensure that we are coming to know the true God rather than an imposter. Even so, God is not known by dogmas. He is known personally. My younger brother who has Downs Syndrome loves God with a blessed abandon, often shaming me with the purity of his faith. While he has very little knowledge of dogma, he has far greater knowledge of God than most of us do with all our extensive knowledge about Him.
I am by no means ambivalent about Orthodox Truth. There are reasons the Church has given dogmatic definitions to guide us and keep us in the true Faith. Real belief (as opposed to mere mental assent) has consequences for salvation because it is the basis of all the works by which we shall be judged. Nevertheless, I believe these thoughts are worth pondering as a sort of balance when we consider the essential meaning of heresy or what it means to ‘understand’ the dogmas about God and the finer points of theology. Our Faith is in God the Father, His only Begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit. It does not consist of knowing facts about Him. To believe otherwise is to deny that the simple can know Him, yet clearly they can and do with a purity of heart far greater than most – certainly than mine.
“This is eternal life: to know Thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”
If I and the culture in which I was reared understood (albeit wrongly) that the Orthodox Church teaches that I will become God (as in Divinity) rather than fully and truly human by virtue of my deifying union with Him, I, too, would reject it – and rightly so, for this is not the God I know. And if having a thorough comprehension of the Eucharist is the measure of my Orthodoxy I am in big trouble. We know only what can be known, and even that is by faith. The rest is a mystery beyond our understanding – not something that we create by our right belief, but something that is graciously given to us as a gift.
When I think of men like Pope Shenouda I cannot help but call to mind the Rechabites (Jeremiah 35) who faithfully kept the commands of Jonadab their father. And in spite of the fact that their father’s commandments were in no way obligatory for the people of Israel, they were both held up as an example to the nation and rewarded by God for their obedience.
I hope and pray that the same is true of Pope Shenouda.
Yes, indeed, Brian. Too many of us act as if God’s words to Isaiah about the Persian Emperor, Cyrus, had no doctrinal significance. He spoke of him lovingly as My Anointed One, although he was not ****eschatologically” the Messiah, and was probably a Zoroastrian. (Khristos mou, I believe, in Greek.)
.
Pope Shenouda was a great man and deserves to be honored. Did someone mention about Patriach Timothy of Egypt in the 6th century. According to Byzantine historian John of Nikku Theodora, Justinian’s wife considered him her spritual father.
Yes, and Theodora is mostly famous as being the patroness of the anti-Chalcedonian churches that came into independent existence during Justinian’s reign…. history has never seen her as Orthodox.
Now Samni!, you know Theodora is famous for a LOT more than supporting the Monophysite faction behind her husband’s back, with or without the latter’s complicity! A LOT more!
Just wanted to share with you two stories concerning the late Pope Cyril IV the wonder-worker. I do not recall the name, but a Greek bishop in England has his picture in his living room. That picture oozed oil that worked miracles. The Pope appeared to him asking him to anoint people with it. Another Greek bishop (the person telling this account forgot the name as well) was praying with tears, suddenly he saw Pope Cyril IV who asked him why he was crying. He said, “I am crying for the unity of the church” The Pope replied, “I am praying for that too.” He then asked him to deliver a message to his spiritual daughter in Cairo (the now departed miracle working) mother Irene. I used to be very happy that I as a Copt cut communion with the semi-nestorians that abrogated the faith as explained by St Cyril and approved unanimously in Ephesus, but then I thought… If I agree that Jesus is/felt/experienced all that is God and all that is in human (except for sin) without mingling, confusion, or change, and stop right there then we do have the same faith, and the mutual excommunication caused by political meddling was a true theological misunderstanding if there is such a thing.