coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

Anglian

posted on Oct 22, 2007 - 10:31 PM

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Some of us are members of other fora where we have engaged in discussion on the subject of unity, and we know from experience how thorny a subject this can be.

But here I wanted to raise one aspect of it. I notice that whenever it is raised with the EO in their fora they seem to assume that we want union with them and will, therefore, have to agree to their terms.

This puzzles me at one level, since it was the Melkite Church which sought to persecute us for simply holding onto the Faith once received. It suggests to me that many EO do not take our Church seriously, and fail to understand that we only defend it when they attack it, not in order to justify it. It needs no justification. If, after 1600 years of persecution it is still holding fast to the Faith, that tells its own story, and no defence is needed.

How do others see this?

In Christ,

Anglian

_________________
In love did He bring the world into existence; in love is He going to bring it to that wondrous transformed state, and in love will the world be swallowed up in the great mystery of Him who has performed these things.
- St Isaac of Nineveh

Joined: Oct 20, 2007 | Posts: 23
Location: Norfolk UK

Iqbal

posted on Oct 22, 2007 - 11:10 PM

I know there are many who attempt to reduce the difference, both ancient and modern, between us and the Eastern Orthodox to a matter of semantics, and whilst there may be some truth to the linguistic argument I am more inclined to view it as significantly more than that.

The difference was and remains, at its core, a difference in the spiritual perception of reality. The reason why our Fathers and the Chalcedonians could not see eye to eye back in their day, and the reason why we can't seem to see eye to eye with the Chalcedonians of today, is because one side (our "side") has a clearer vision of the Person of Truth, and a truer Communion with Him, whilst the other side is deficient in this regard. That is why they couldn't in the past, and can't in the present, see past the evidently trivial semantic differences. It explains, John, why both you, I, Peter, and any other OO who has tried to sit and reason with some of these people, largely find our efforts (with exceptions) to be futile in the end. I'm sure there have been times after having tried to engage Chalcedonians on issues surrounding the historical divide, that you have, on a number of occasions (as I have) thought to yourself: "What exactly are they not understanding about what I am saying? Are they stupid? It can't be that, for they sound perfectly rational when they speak on other subjects; what is it they're not getting about this particular subject?!"

Here is the explanation John, and this explanation is strongly substantiated by the historically evidenced ancient worldview of our Holy Fathers: their understansing of reality--not history, not semantics, nor arguments--is distorted. It's as simple as that.

Joined: Nov 15, 2004 | Posts: 127

Anglian

posted on Oct 22, 2007 - 11:30 PM

Dear Iqbal,

How very interesting - and informative - thank you.

I am persuaded by what you say; it certainly helps explain the frustration one feels when engaged with some Eastern Orthodox.

I wonder, too, whether there is another dimension at work here? The Greek and Russian Churches both have long histories of being Imperial Churches, and have both been able to call upon the State to help them enforce their views on others; so there is a kind of arrogance (for want of a better word) at work here.

The Copts, like all the Oriental Orthodox, have been spared from the effects of being a state Church for the longest period of time. Instead, we have taken on the part of the suffering servant, enduring persecution (both Chalcedonian and Muslim) and turning the other cheek as our Lord taught. Thus, although on the surface the Oriental Orthodox have had a tougher time of it in a worldly sense, I wonder whether this has not actually given them a greater spirituality and a more direct experience of how to follow Christ in His suffering; just a thought?

In Christ,

Anglian

_________________
In love did He bring the world into existence; in love is He going to bring it to that wondrous transformed state, and in love will the world be swallowed up in the great mystery of Him who has performed these things.
- St Isaac of Nineveh

Joined: Oct 20, 2007 | Posts: 23
Location: Norfolk UK

minasoliman

posted on Oct 23, 2007 - 01:45 AM

When it comes to empirical politics, sometimes I try to show how the emperor himself persecuted even ditheletes. Therefore, the idea that the Church had to ask help from the empire need to be discouraged, especially in our ideas of freedom today. In fact, I made an argument that the Chalcedonian Byzantine empire contradicts the Constantinian Edict of Milan, which allowed for a freedom of religion and a peaceful co-existence. In theory, even heresy should have been allowed to be practiced in a political setting under the Edict. The question then would be not so much as whether we need the empire, but the inconsistency of the empire to stick to its beliefs in the past, which caused such strife and division in the Church.

The idea that today we would unite with the Eastern Orthodox has to come from a foundational idea that they are indeed of the Church. We know that it is not a council that defines Orthodox faith, but Orthodox faith that defines a council's Orthodoxy. Therefore, if we are to unite with them, then it would be established that our unity is based on only an ecclesiastical realization of the oneness of our Church, not an establishment of such. This is very clear in the dialogues, especially when we are called to mutually lift anathemas on previous men and councils.

Unfortunately, I'm starting to lose patience on this issue. I pray that we unite, and I'm still keeping a cautious optimism towards it, but the rehashing of false arguments made by ignorant Eastern Orthodox make me wonder. If they cannot face the truth of the Orthodoxy of our Church, are they even worth dialogging with or even considering their salvation as part of this one Church? For those who deny the Church after much dialogue and discussion are clearly those who inconsistently in denial with the Truth, and by this are making themselves outside the Church. I have a problem therefore considering the monks of Mt. Athos or ROCOR as part of the Orthodox Church in that regard. If the rest of the EO community can lose them, we'd be better off. They're of no value to me anymore; they're nothing but cancer that needs to be cut off and thrown in the furnace.

We can be fair and consider truthful research on the regard of the Orthodoxy of the Chalcedonians in history, because history is history. Even if Pelagius turned out not to be Pelagian should not matter whether there's a Pelagian Church today or not. Our exemplary attitude towards objectivity in history is much more important than unity in this regard because it's this type of attitude that shows our sincerity to the truth, not going after our own polemical or hagiographical desires, and may in fact lead to a unity that attracts them to us, rather than have them think we are the beggars of the dialogue.

God bless.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1757

Anglian

posted on Oct 23, 2007 - 01:48 PM

Dear Mina,

Very interesting - and coming from someone who has tried as hard as you have to enlighten our Chalcedonian brethren, very thought-provoking.

It does, at times, seem as though some in the EO simply refuse to hear what is said to them. They appear to see us as supplicants and to mistake eirenic instincts for a tacit admission that they are THE Church - simply because that is what they believe. The way in which the Athonite monks (or some of them) bad mouth the Ecumenical patriarch suggests a determination to stick with their prejudices even if their own chief pastor wants to get beyond such things.

Interestingly, I have generally found Roman Catholics less unwilling to at least think about the Coptic position. They often start from a position of some ignorance, but evince a willingness to find out about our history and our tradition.

I do wonder whether the problems with ROCOR come from thier own somewhat irregular position vis a vis the MP for so long; perhaps that has made them more royalist than the king, so to speak.

In the final analysis we are interested in unity because He commanded us to be one, and because our instincts seem always to point us in the direction of obedience; but if others have no desire to do anything other than repeat ancient and out-dated slanders, then all we can do is to get on with the Lord's business and trust in the Spirit.

In Christ,

Anglian

_________________
In love did He bring the world into existence; in love is He going to bring it to that wondrous transformed state, and in love will the world be swallowed up in the great mystery of Him who has performed these things.
- St Isaac of Nineveh

Joined: Oct 20, 2007 | Posts: 23
Location: Norfolk UK

Iqbal

posted on Oct 23, 2007 - 03:36 PM

From Anglian:I am persuaded by what you say; it certainly helps explain the frustration one feels when engaged with some Eastern Orthodox.

I should've laid more emphasis on the fact that I did not intend on making any sweeping generalisations in my previous post. There are certainly many EO who approach the sensitive issues between us with much charity and humility (enough to put me to shame at times), and hence understanding, and I would not hesitate to claim that their ability to understand reflects a greater spiritual perception of reality than those who are more stubborn and divisive (so I wasn't trying to standardise some notion of defective spiritual perception across the entire EO Communion).

Thanks for your additional thoughts on the matter; I have never considered it from that perspective before but it does certainly make alot of sense. The lasting and unfortunate consequence of the imperial support of Chalcedonianism was ultimately that the Chalcedonian confession would be equated by and large with 'normative orthodoxy' or 'mainstream christianity'--a consequence reflected in standard textbooks on Christian doctrine and Church history (though some scholars are thankfully starting to abandon the way they use such conventions). I feel that many Chalcedonians have used such popular sentiments as ladders by which to climb the high horse in an attempt to put us on the defensive, as if we are the one's in need of justifying our position in contrast to them who are able to take the legitimacy of their position for granted.

Joined: Nov 15, 2004 | Posts: 127

lowlyman

posted on Oct 23, 2007 - 08:29 PM

Iqbal

I often read your posting with great interest as I find them beneficial to me. However, I find myself at a disagreement with you on this particular topic. I am not seeing any difference between your disposition and that of the average eastern orthodox disposition on this issue. Your claim that the Oriental Orthodox church having a clearer vision of the truth and a truer communion with him is inviting to a violent disagreement. You further assert that the other side is deficient. Duh! What other disposition do you expect from the Eastern Orthodox Church when this is your starting point? In any case, since I am an eastern orthodox, I invite you to present your argument in more details.

Sincerely,
a hopeful member of the one body of Christ,
lowly

From Iqbal:I know there are many who attempt to reduce the difference, both ancient and modern, between us and the Eastern Orthodox to a matter of semantics, and whilst there may be some truth to the linguistic argument I am more inclined to view it as significantly more than that.

The difference was and remains, at its core, a difference in the spiritual perception of reality. The reason why our Fathers and the Chalcedonians could not see eye to eye back in their day, and the reason why we can't seem to see eye to eye with the Chalcedonians of today, is because one side (our "side") has a clearer vision of the Person of Truth, and a truer Communion with Him, whilst the other side is deficient in this regard. That is why they couldn't in the past, and can't in the present, see past the evidently trivial semantic differences. It explains, John, why both you, I, Peter, and any other OO who has tried to sit and reason with some of these people, largely find our efforts (with exceptions) to be futile in the end. I'm sure there have been times after having tried to engage Chalcedonians on issues surrounding the historical divide, that you have, on a number of occasions (as I have) thought to yourself: "What exactly are they not understanding about what I am saying? Are they stupid? It can't be that, for they sound perfectly rational when they speak on other subjects; what is it they're not getting about this particular subject?!"

Here is the explanation John, and this explanation is strongly substantiated by the historically evidenced ancient worldview of our Holy Fathers: their understansing of reality--not history, not semantics, nor arguments--is distorted. It's as simple as that.

Joined: Apr 04, 2006 | Posts: 242

Iqbal

posted on Oct 23, 2007 - 08:52 PM

Lowlyman,

From lowlyman: I am not seeing any difference between your disposition and that of the average eastern orthodox disposition on this issue.

Well that's fine, I have no problem with the EO position per se, I simply have a problem with them asserting it unempathatically before OO as if it possesses some sort of objective rational force that should compel the OO to unconditionally accept it.

My presuppositions are what they are, and they are justified within an OO framework, but when I speak with EO on matters pertaining to Chalcedon I am aware of how to adapt my arguments in consideration of the beliefs and presuppositions of the audience.

Your claim that the Oriental Orthodox church having a clearer vision of the truth and a truer communion with him is inviting to a violent disagreement.

Well it did in the past and I do not see why it should be any different today. Many OO are quite ignorant of the witness of the OO Church's ancient ascetic heroes (Abba Longinus, St Abraham of Fustat, St Shenoute the Archimandrite, St Peter the Iberian etc.) and the significance they played in the historical division. As scholars like Cornelia Horn are able to recognise, the fundamental difference between us and the Chalcedonians, was ultimately a difference in our spiritual perception of reality. Our holy men did not only reject Chalcedon because of mere doctrinal considerations, but primarily because in their ascetic pursuit to holiness they were able to sift through the competing human perspectives and see the objective Divine perspective on the whole matter.

What other disposition do you expect from the Eastern Orthodox Church when this is your starting point?

I don't expect any other disposition from the EO, I simply expect them to recognise that there is no objective force to their disposition within the context of EO-OO dialogue, and that they hence have no right or basis to dictate to any OO the nature of the Church and her doctrine or to put us on the defensive to justify our Church's position and doctrine.

In any case, since I am an eastern orthodox, I invite you to present your argument in more details.

Since you are Eastern Orthodox then I have no argument to make with you, since, as i've admitted, the position i'm propounding here rests on OO presuppositions which are grounded in the OO experience and hence have force only within an OO framework.

Joined: Nov 15, 2004 | Posts: 127

Anglian

posted on Oct 23, 2007 - 11:41 PM

Dear Iqbal,

It might help our EO brother to know that this conversation, if it can be so characterised, is in a sense in media res. Taken in its longer context it takes on the form of a lament about the inability to get very far in dialogue without someone asserting that they have been brought up to believe that we are heretical, and it doesn't matter what we say, that is what they have been taught; but, of course, when their bishop tells them otherwise, they'll agree with him - unless of course they decide not to.

It is from that context frustration flows. It is that, in part, which led me to ask the initial question, since I get a sense that the oft-stated reasons are not the whole story.

Thus when you write:


because one side (our "side") has a clearer vision of the Person of Truth, and a truer Communion with Him, whilst the other side is deficient in this regard.
that is indeed to state from our 'side' what the Chalcedonians state from their side; and from each side each is 'right'. But it might be helpful to explore what 'our' vision entails - and then to see what the EO vision is.

This, in one way, looks past ecclesiology (where agreement can hardly be had as a primary activity, since that would have to follow other agreements) towards Christology - and it may be that it is there, where the argument began, that it might have an ending.

Just a thought.

In Christ,

Anglian

_________________
In love did He bring the world into existence; in love is He going to bring it to that wondrous transformed state, and in love will the world be swallowed up in the great mystery of Him who has performed these things.
- St Isaac of Nineveh

Joined: Oct 20, 2007 | Posts: 23
Location: Norfolk UK

lowlyman

posted on Oct 24, 2007 - 12:46 AM

Anglian,

in case you don't hear it enough....

My EO friends and I have nothing but utmost respect and admiration for the Coptic Church, its rich tradition, and it's great Saints. May they intercede for all of us with our Lord and savior jesus christ. o Kyrillos, intercede for me. amen.

ps; would love to see an exploration of both visions as alluded to below by Anglian..

From Anglian:Dear Iqbal,

It might help our EO brother to know that this conversation, if it can be so characterised, is in a sense in media res. Taken in its longer context it takes on the form of a lament about the inability to get very far in dialogue without someone asserting that they have been brought up to believe that we are heretical, and it doesn't matter what we say, that is what they have been taught; but, of course, when their bishop tells them otherwise, they'll agree with him - unless of course they decide not to.

It is from that context frustration flows. It is that, in part, which led me to ask the initial question, since I get a sense that the oft-stated reasons are not the whole story.

Thus when you write:


because one side (our "side") has a clearer vision of the Person of Truth, and a truer Communion with Him, whilst the other side is deficient in this regard.
that is indeed to state from our 'side' what the Chalcedonians state from their side; and from each side each is 'right'. But it might be helpful to explore what 'our' vision entails - and then to see what the EO vision is.

This, in one way, looks past ecclesiology (where agreement can hardly be had as a primary activity, since that would have to follow other agreements) towards Christology - and it may be that it is there, where the argument began, that it might have an ending.

Just a thought.

In Christ,

Anglian

Joined: Apr 04, 2006 | Posts: 242

HonoringGod

posted on Oct 24, 2007 - 09:59 AM

The major problem with unity in any church is the many arguments that are brought up. If we look throughout history, unity is usually always associated with some hectic event. The allies unified for one goal, to defeat germany. Big businesses unified to try and defeat the creation of unions. Once their enimies were defeated they went their seperate ways.
The churchs act the same way. When dialouge is opened between the different churchs, a dispute must always be addressed. This by itself will always lead the churchs to conflict. The pope and all the bishops in the OO are in full agreement with the unification of the churchs. This is the first step to a church being ready to accept unity. The OO has entered into dialouge with many christian churchs.
True unity must start with the clergy of the church. They must ALL agree that unity should happen. If even one member does not agree, then unity cannot be achieved. Unity is not based on disagreements, it is based on the points of agreement, which im sad to say cause the most disagreements between the churchs. Each church lingers in the past and brings up problems that, even if they are answered, never go away. To open up true unity, each church should discuss the points of agreement. Through this many issues that plague unity can be addressed.
How? Have you ever gotten into an argument with someone who dosent listen to your answer? You have to explain everything from the beginning to him before he finally agrees. The same with the churchs. We have all learned why the churchs split from our own history, but do we know who is right and who is wrong? No. The dialouge between the churchs should be based on what we know is true. The faith that was past down by the apostles should be discussed. Through this arguments that came through "he said this" and "no i said this" will be resolved.
Your friend in Christ,
Tim

Joined: Nov 18, 2003 | Posts: 42
Location: Southern Cal

Anglian

posted on Oct 24, 2007 - 06:59 PM

Dear Tim,

You make some very interesting points.

[i] If we look throughout history, unity is usually always associated with some hectic event. The allies unified for one goal, to defeat germany. Big businesses unified to try and defeat the creation of unions. Once their enimies were defeated they went their seperate ways[/i].

Well. if the combined assualts of Islam and secularism are not sufficient cause to make us think seriously about uniting to prevail against such forces, then I wonder what would be?


True unity must start with the clergy of the church. They must ALL agree that unity should happen. If even one member does not agree, then unity cannot be achieved.
Well, that is unlikely ever to happen; it would mean that one monk on Athos could stand in the way of unity. That is why it has to happen at a number of levels, but especially at the level of the bishops who are, in Orthodoxy, the leaders of their flocks. But lay people also have a role - even if it is no more than the humble one of trying to listen to each other and to understand the other.


Unity is not based on disagreements, it is based on the points of agreement, which im sad to say cause the most disagreements between the churchs. Each church lingers in the past and brings up problems that, even if they are answered, never go away. To open up true unity, each church should discuss the points of agreement. Through this many issues that plague unity can be addressed.

This has to be right, and we are, I think, in this stage. But there is a lead that needs to be given from the top on this. This is not to say vthere is not already, but simply to say that without a sustained effort nothing will happen; of course, maybe even with it, nothing will. But if we are to be open to the promptings of the Spirit, we have to be just that - open.

In Christ,

Anglian
[/i]

_________________
In love did He bring the world into existence; in love is He going to bring it to that wondrous transformed state, and in love will the world be swallowed up in the great mystery of Him who has performed these things.
- St Isaac of Nineveh

Joined: Oct 20, 2007 | Posts: 23
Location: Norfolk UK