Reunion

[knee-v]

Does anyone have any idea as to how far along the EOC and OOC are with being back in communion? And if so, do you have any details as to specific events, like talks between Patriarchs, etc?

[The Prokeimenon!]

I'm not aware of anything formal- but then again, I'm not aware of a lot of things :)

Moses

[Moros]

I'm not sure how interested Shenouda III is.

[Aristokles]

Despite all of the internet forum activity and interest, and that there are some groups still traveling to win support on both sides...my guess is it isn't going to happen, at least not in my lifetime.

[Vasya Davidovich]

Osel:

This is a minor thread hijacking, but I was wondering what the symbol in your signature means.

Vasya.

-----
As per the OP, I doubt very much that we would see a reunion at the level of theology (ie. full theological agreement) in my lifetime. On the other hand, it is conceivable that some may be deceived as to the seriousness of the theological differences between the two parties, and create an artificial union.

My Coptic friends are emphatically Monophysite, and while they dislike the term as being mildly pejorative, they have no problems with the theology. If they (my friends) are indicative of Copts as a whole, then I cannot see how there can be a union any time soon - someone has to admit that they were wrong, and I don't think either is prepared to do that.

[Philip]

My Coptic friends are emphatically Monophysite, and while they dislike the term as being mildly pejorative, they have no problems with the theology.


This coincides with my experience.

If they (my friends) are indicative of Copts as a whole, then I cannot see how there can be a union any time soon - someone has to admit that they were wrong, and I don't think either is prepared to do that.

A few years ago, I was more optimistic. As I learn how far apart the theologies are, I grew less so.

[knee-v]

The Copts define "monophysite" a certain way. How are you defining the word when you use it?

[Vasya Davidovich]

A few years ago, I was more optimistic. As I learn how far apart the theologies are, I grew less so.
Ditto.

I think Bishop KALLISTOS' book, The Orthodox Church, is deceptively optimistic in this regard. At least in my case, my optimism largely stemmed from reading it and from talking to some of my more hopeful Orthodox friends.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with hoping for union. I do think, though, that we need to be cautious in our appropriation of it... you know, not turning a blind eye to the clear theological discrepancies between the parties. Also, this would have to be a move of the Church as a whole, not of individual dioceses or jurisdictions. Which means dealing with the fact that we have some jurisdictions and groups (like Mt. Athos) who are emphatically opposed.

We need to respect the memories of places like Mt. Athos. Just because Westerners have no memory of things beyond the time of their parents' generation (and often less than that) does not mean that this is the course of true wisdom. Memory helps to preserve tradition. Memory reminds us that we are not infallible, for we come from a fallible people. Memory is the antithesis of Modernism.

[Dust and Ashes]

Osel:

This is a minor thread hijacking, but I was wondering what the symbol in your signature means.

Vasya.

The symbol represents Islam. With that in mind, read those verses he has listed. ;)

[Servus Iesu]

Sounds similar to the RC-EO situation. It seems that the case with all of these reunion talks is that if the Church of Christ is indefectible someone has to admit that they are wrong and the other side is right and the obvious implication is that you or me has been a schismatic for a long time. This seems to be extremely unlikely.

If the EO and OO are going to unite then the OO would have to accept Chalcedon or you would have to reject it. I'm reasonably sure you won't do the latter and what chance is there of the OO doing the former. Am I wrong?

[Vasya Davidovich]

The symbol represents Islam. With that in mind, read those verses he has listed. ;)
Ah. I was thinking it might represent Turkey.

Thanks.

[StChristopherofPalestine]

Ah. I was thinking it might represent Turkey.

Thanks.

Technically, it does. Islam doesn't have an official symbol and that one has been kinda attached to it.

My understanding is that the few Copts around where I live are pretty close to true Orthodox theology, but I doubt that this is the case with the majority.

[xristos.anesti]

Sounds similar to the RC-EO situation. It seems that the case with all of these reunion talks is that if the Church of Christ is indefectible someone has to admit that they are wrong and the other side is right and the obvious implication is that you or me has been a schismatic for a long time. This seems to be extremely unlikely.

If the EO and OO are going to unite then the OO would have to accept Chalcedon or you would have to reject it. I'm reasonably sure you won't do the latter and what chance is there of the OO doing the former. Am I wrong?


Many years,

I am very sorry, there is no similarity with the EO-RC situation at all. But that is from where I am sitting. Could be very different in other chairs. :)

If the we were to reunite; non-Chaldeconians should not have to accept the Chalcedon and post Chalcedon councils as Ecumenical, but as Local councils.

Some in Orthodox Church (myself included) count 9 Ecumenical Councils, the rest of the Church counts 7, non-Chalcedonians count 3. The difference would be (is) the ammount of Ecumenical and Local Councils.

Before 1054 AD there was all bunch of councils that were rejected as ecumenical, rejected as local, rejected fully... this is non-issue.

Chalcedonians and non Chalcedonians have to work out the issues of communion and that is it. Communion is what makes the Church and not mathematics.

As I (who counts 9 Ecumenical councils) am in communion with someone who counts 7 without any loss of communion because he/she sees my 2 Ecumenical councils as 2 Local councils, so would be with non Chalcedonians.

On the question of who is right and who is wrong... well, there is the lesson for us all to learn.. it is called humility.

I am, for one, very optimistic when it come to our relations (non Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian).



Note: I would prefer terms Chelcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian as opposed to Eastern and Oriental as terms of noting difference between two sides. The later terms (as object of distinction between two sides) are product of "rape of language" by the western theologians and historians, who do tend to talk about thing that they have no clue about (such is life).

Eastern and Oriental IS ONE THE SAME, that is term Eastern IS Oriental, so by using these (this) term(s) people tend to disregard the essence ot the difference.

[Vasya Davidovich]

The Copts define "monophysite" a certain way. How are you defining the word when you use it?
Well, I mistrust words at times. Especially in light of Bishop KALLISTOS' assertion that there were translation problems that confused the issue back when it first became an issue.

Accordingly, when I spoke with my English-speaking (English as a first language) Coptic friends, I skipped the term "Monophysite" and went directly for the meat of the matter - what they believe, what they affirm.

And bluntly, what my friends believe and what they affirm is identical with the heresy that we have labelled "Monophysitism."

I then double-checked it against a pamphlet written by an articulate Coptic priest explaining Coptic beliefs, and there again I saw an affirmation of a belief that Orthodox do not hold.

At that point, I felt that perhaps an iminent reunion was a trifle over-optimistic.

[Servus Iesu]

My apologies.

Isn't it the case though that there would have to be an agreement on what Chalcedon said concerning the two natures of Christ? In which case one side would have to concede.

I'm not saying the similarities are perfect but that in both cases their are big obstacles. You seem to think that the obstacles between RC and EO union are pretty big so we are in agreement about that.

If you think that Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox are close to an agreement then I won't argue with you.

[Servus Iesu]

Note: I would prefer terms Chelcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian as opposed to Eastern and Oriental as terms of noting difference between two sides. The later terms (as object of distinction between two sides) are product of "rape of language" by the western theologians and historians, who do tend to talk about thing that they have no clue about (such is life).

Eastern and Oriental IS ONE THE SAME, that is term Eastern IS Oriental, so by using these (this) term(s) people tend to disregard the essence ot the difference.

Well then shouldn't you change the names of your respective forums? You cannot hold me accountable for "rape of language" when your own forum is named The Ancient Way - Eastern Orthodox. Sorry for the offense and sorry for talking about something I have no clue about.

[xristos.anesti]

I am not going into issues of Natures of Christ, as this is the job of the people who are far my humble and educated than I am. Conceding or whatever the solution might be is what comes from the will of the Church, I can not comment on this.

I am just pointing out that agreement about number of councils is not what makes the communion.

Also, there is no real reason why I would be more or less optimistic, I just am. To be honest the reasons are not there... I am simply an optimist...

[xristos.anesti]

Well then shouldn't you change the names of your respective forums? You cannot hold me accountable for "rape of language" when your own forum is named The Ancient Way - Eastern Orthodox. Sorry for the offense and sorry for talking about something I have no clue about.

Well, this is English speaking forum... nothing I can do about that...

Also, I am not holding YOU accountable...

I am just saying that terms are used by protestant theologians (that have influenced English theological dictionary) to make classification between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian sides with utter disregard for the actual meaning of the word(s).

[Servus Iesu]

Well, this is English speaking forum... nothing I can do about that...

Also, I am not holding YOU accountable...

I am just saying that terms are used by protestant theologians (that have influenced English theological dictionary) to make classification between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian sides with utter disregard for the actual meaning of the word(s).

I am glad you aren't holding me accountable. It is very hard to tell from your posts though. Whenever you respond to something I say it seems like you go off on tangents about the evils of Westernism. I find it difficult to separate out where you are addressing me directly and where you are simply offering up round house blows at the West in general without targeting me specifically.

[choirfiend]

What Orthodox group holds to 9 councils? I haven't heard of them before.

[Vasya Davidovich]

What Orthodox group holds to 9 councils? I haven't heard of them before.
Nor more have I.

Xristos Anesti, I am assuming that you are including the 7 Ecumenical councils, and possibly the one that affirmed hesychasm, but which is the 9th?

Vasya.

[xristos.anesti]

I am glad you aren't holding me accountable. It is very hard to tell from your posts though. Whenever you respond to something I say it seems like you go off on tangents about the evils of Westernism. I find it difficult to separate out where you are addressing me directly and where you are simply offering up round house blows at the West in general without targeting me specifically.

I do apologise if this seems this way, I told you that it is not my intention to make it look that way. I am sorry, in a view that you have perceived it that way (probably very objective) I will try not to present information in such a manner that will make you feel as though I am attacking you. Again, I am very sorry.



What Orthodox group holds to 9 councils? I haven't heard of them before.


Fourth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople - Eighth Ecumenical (Imperial) Council 879-880 AD Resolved scandals between East and West regarding Bulgaria. Expelled those who did not recognise Nicaea II as Seventh Ecumenical Council. Outlawed and repudiated local councils of Rome and Constantinople against Saint Photius. Established that the Symbol of Faith from Constantinople I (the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed) was to be forever 'un-innovated' and 'immutable'. Required those excommunicated by Rome to be treated as such by Constantinople and vice-versa. (Accepted by all five patriarchates, including Pope John VIII).


Council at Constantinople - Ninth Ecumenical (Imperial) Council, 1341, 1349, 1351 AD Convened regarding Barlaam the Calabrian and Acindynus. Condemned Barlaam the Calabrian and Acindynus. Condemned those who think the light of Christ's Transfiguration was an apparition, or the essence of God and those who do not believe the divine light is the uncreated grace and energy of God which proceeds from God's essence; those who do not recognise the undivided distinction between God's essence and his energy; those who deny the energy of God is uncreated; those who say the distinction between energy and essence implies that God is not simple and uncompounded; those claim the term 'Godhead' should only be applied to the essence of God, and not to the divine energy; and those who maintain the Divine Essence can be communicated.


It is not a group as such, I am not a schismatic or anything like that, nor "old believer" nor "old calendarist"... I am just one of those who hold that there were indeed 9 Ecumenical Councils as given by the Tradition of the Church.

To me, listing Ecumenical councils as 7 is somewhat like listing our Mysteries (Sacraments) as 7. It is not wrong, but it is not the fullness. I just do not like to stick to the numbers but to the matter of science. Also, by saying that there were only 7, there is a chance to portray the picture that we do not grow (indeed there are some accusations of this).

There is nothing new (as on every of the "normal" 7 councils) on these 2. It is what the Church has always believed. It is, also, just a bit wider count.

Here is bigger list of the Orthodox Councils. (http://mb-soft.com/believe/txw/orthcoun.htm)
But even this list can be made bigger as every local Church has its own councils that were not recorded here.

Many years.

[choirfiend]

Ah, ok. Well, of course you dont stop being part of the Orthodox Church because you're just holding a personal opinion...nothing heretical (bc there was nothing heretical in the councils, right?) But no church calls those councils authoritative, which one would think is a pretty good clue to their ecumenicalism...I mean, I could hold the opinion that the Sobor just held by the OCA in Toronto was ecumenical (they didn't pronounce anything that was heretical) but that hardly makes it so, yes?

That's a far cry from the problem between the EO and the OO.

There's definitely a lot of good stuff that comes out of local councils, but we don't affirm belief in their doctrines authoritatively and across the Church universal. I'll stick to the beliefs that I was baptised into, and appreciate local councils as a means of truth, but not issues that the Church has declared essential to the faith.

[Vasya Davidovich]

Actually, Choirfiend, XA makes a good point. Orthodoxy didn't become a closed book at the close of the 7th Ecumenical council.

In fact, all Orthodox would hold to the beliefs expressed by the council convened against Barlaam, which XA describes as the 9th. If all Orthodox believe it, and if it was accepted by all the non-schismatic patriarchates, would that not make it Ecumenical?

And the fact that the "8th" council was accepted by all... this raises the interesting point that perhaps it is the 8th, without quotations.

Appreciate the contributions, XA.
-Vasya.

[Vasya Davidovich]

I think that, in all probability, we stick to the first seven because it makes it easier for us to discuss possible reunion with Rome. However, if both groups are claiming ecumenical councils over the same period...

It is hard, I think, to be conciliatory when you are being dogmatic.

[choirfiend]

I appreciate that. I dont think Orthodoxy is a closed book; it is a vibrant, living faith. I think that all Orthodox need to take part in a council, not only to accept its teachings, for wasn't this the case for the other 7? Isn't that what makes them ecumenical? Maybe it's just semantics, but local councils SHOULD be conveying Orthodox beliefs, right? (hopefully, anyway.) But even if the Church accepts what came out of a local council, we are required to profess belief in 7 councils. When we start deciding what other councils were divinely led for ourselves, what's really to keep us from deciding any council is divinely led? It's a matter of a slippery slope between affirming good beliefs and falling for bad ones.

[choirfiend]

Well, we continued to have councils after the OO break...why would we suddenly cease to hold councils after Rome broke just to facilitate them? That argument doesn't make sense.

[xristos.anesti]

My point was to make a comment on what Servus Iesu said: "If the EO and OO are going to unite then the OO would have to accept Chalcedon or you would have to reject it. I'm reasonably sure you won't do the latter and what chance is there of the OO doing the former".

That is why I mentioned this issue of numbering the Councils. It is not the number of actual councils that makes the Church, but the communion of all right believing bishops.

Without going into issues of divisions between Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonians, I was just pointing out that Copts (for example) would not have to accept all councils as ecumenical, but to agree on theology They can not accept councils as ecumenical if they have not been present, but we will have to agree on issues of theology in order to gain communion.

It was not my intent to go into divisive issues between us and Copts (for example) as I am neither educated not humble enough to presume that I can talk about these issues; nor was my intent to go into issue of numbering councils.

I was simply trying to present my oppinion to Servus Iesu that Non-Chalcedonians would not have to accept all councils as ecumenical, as long as communion is achieved through mutual understanding and humility and most importantly agreement on issues that divide us.

In such light I mentioned 8th and 9th Ecumenical Council. Again, it was not my intention to go into why and how does not all of the Catholic Church see them as such.

It is a worthy theme, but not the one that this particular thread is concerned about.

[minasoliman]

I'm sorry to jump in to the discussion like this. I wish not to cause any loss of peace.

I'm simply going to ask if anyone here at all have any questions or problems regarding the Non-Chalcedonian church, they are free to ask it in our forums. Even if it's a debate, I won't harm you or report you, I promise:holy:

But I just wish for those who disagree with me that we don't actually believe the same thing to visit the "Coptic and Oriential" section of this website and try to have an open mind for once on why there are BISHOPS of your church who agree with our faith, and in turn agree with theirs, and thus see no reason for a split.

May God bless you all.

[xristos.anesti]

Dear Mina, I hope that you understand my point on use of word Eastern and Oriental. It was not meant to, in any way, shape or form presume any negativity towards Non Chalcedonian Christians.

[minasoliman]

No I don't mind.

The word "Oriental" is fine. It's "Monophysite" that I become depressed when I see people use it.

God bless you.