Ethiopian/Eastern reunion essay idea.

[Kollyvas]

Frankly, I'd have to say our Coptic brother fits right in here. After all, he is essentially part of a group that has remained in resistance refusing conciliarity for over a millenium and a half. There's a lesson to be learned which clearly indicts the "neo-papal" model of many resisters. Look at the Non-Chalcedonians as your case study--that could be you...Conciliarity is the only way.
R
For the record, their current christologies are strong affirmations of Ephesus and their leaders have accepted the christological doctrine of all seven Ecumenical Councils "in principle." (They also argue that they weren't present at the deliberations of the last four councils, so "how can they be ecumenical?" As a Russian Orthodox Christian, I must say that that is the most fatuous and silly excuse ever put forward. MOST OF TODAY'S LOCAL CHURCHES WEREN'T THERE AS THEY DIDN'T EXIST, YET THE TRUTH IS ONE AND THE SAME UNTO THE AGES.) What that means is they accept Chalcedonian Orthodoxy under the auspices that Non-Chalcedonian "primativism" be honoured too as "Orthodox." Trouble is that such an ecclesiological model would pardon any schism and has no patristic precedent. I think you all understand that that's not how the Fathers called for the return of schismatics EVEN IN THE "pre-Chalcedonian era." This proposed ecclesiology then is an innovation which does no one any spiritual good. Must this schism end? It should. THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL ESTABLISHES THE FRAMEWORK TO END IT. However, the forces of moral relativism and ecumenism are shaping the venerable Non-Chalcedonian confessions into something they themselves weren't and we should never try to become....

[EkhristosAnesti]

Dear Germanus,

Please accept my apologies if I have offended you.

There is absolutely nothing to forgive; I am not offended by anything you have said. Forgive me if I have in turn offended or upset you with either the tone or content of my posts.

Maybe I have been misunderstood...My idea was to keep up the talk between East and Oriental Orthodox so as to unify our faith.

It is good that you have a positive hope towards potential Chalcedonian/OO unity. I once shared this hope, but have since abandoned for two main reasons. One of these reasons is based on practicality; the problem I have with potential re-unity, is the word potential. The Oriental Orthodox Church will not budge regarding how many Ecumenical Councils there are. We will not compromise the Orthodox faith for the sake of unity. We have agreed to allow the Chalcedonian Church to accept the latter four councils as mere local Orthodox councils, but that’s as far as it goes. The second reason is that re-union will cause further divisions. I tend to notice that Oriental Orthodox Christians are more obedient to their hierarchs than the Chalcedonians are to their own. If the Holy Synod of our Church decided to re-unite with the Chalcedonian Church, you will find negligible resistance to the unanimous decision of the God-inspired Bishops. On the other hand, the Chalcedonian Church is already plagued with schisms centering on disputes over silly issues like the Calendar etc. The Chalcedonian Church needs to get in shape first and sort herself out before even considering unity with the Oriental Orthodox Church.

However, before one calls them monophysite, one must truly do his homework and not just buy into what is popular to believe. Research is key.

I’m glad you’ve engaged in proper research, and come to the honest conclusion that the Oriental Orthodox Church holds to an Orthodox Christology. Those who continue their wild accusations against us lack the ability to undergo honest academics because they feel that to do so will challenge their faith. They regard their Fathers as gods, the anathemas against us as unquestionable, and the lies/misunderstandings purported concerning our faith to be dogmatic self-evident truths. There is no shame in admitting that a certain Father got it wrong ; that those who anathematised Saints Dioscoros and Severos as monophysite heretics were plain wrong - they were mere men after all. On the contrary, the shame lies when one consistently resists the evidence-based truth due to a blind adherence to false tradition.

I only have a personal love for the ethiopian church because I was brought to the faith by the teachings of H.I.M. Haille Sellassie.

HIM Haile Sellassie was a great Orthodox leader of the Ethiopian Church; I have a photo of him greeting the late Coptic Orthodox Patriarch, His Holiness Pope Saint Kyrillos VI, hanging on my bedroom wall.

I have spoken with three fathers in different jurisdictions who also agree that this misunderstanding in calling the Ethiopian church monophysite can be repared.

Other important figures who would agree with you, include the Chalcedonian Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Moscow, who have all endorsed the conclusions of the dialogues of the Joint-Commission which may be found at www.orthodoxunity.org

[EkhristosAnesti]

Kollyvas,

Frankly, I'd have to say our Coptic brother fits right in here.

Where is “here”? I fit right in where?

There's a lesson to be learned which clearly indicts the "neo-papal" model of many resisters.

The Orthodox (Oriental) Church was not motivated by any sort of ecclesiological model in its historical and continued rejection of the Council of Chalcedon. What absolute nonsense you seek to imply here.

The only ecclesiological heresy at Chalcedon, was that of Leo of Rome’s self-attributed papal supremacy.

Study OO ecclesiology from past to present. There is not nor has there ever been papal supremacy (as excercised by Rome), there is not nor has there ever been papal primacy (as excercised by Constantinople). The Patriarch of Alexandria does not bear the title of “Vicar of Christ” or “Ecumenical Patriarch”; we have no “Vicar of Christ” or “Ecumenical Patriarch”. All Sees are equal, and all Patriarchs equal also.

They also argue that they weren't present at the deliberations of the last four councils, so "how can they be ecumenical?" As a Russian Orthodox Christian, I must say that that is the most fatuous and silly excuse ever put forward. MOST OF TODAY'S LOCAL CHURCHES WEREN'T THERE AS THEY DIDN'T EXIST, YET THE TRUTH IS ONE AND THE SAME UNTO THE AGES.)

I could easily make you look quite foolish for your attempt to ridicule the Church based on a straw man. But I don’t want to be tempted to delve into that form of polemics, especially during Pascha week. So I will give you the opportunity to withdraw your false assumption concerning the Church’s position on this matter, and to in turn do the wise and prudent thing, which is to ask me, an OO, why my Church rejects the alleged Ecumenicity of Chalcedon and the other Councils, despite the fact we can declare through the dialogues of the Joint-Commission that we agree with the substance of the faith declared at these Councils. I assure you, you will find that our answer encompasses much more substantial reasons than the one you falsely attempted to implicitly present as being of primary or essential significance.

What that means is they accept Chalcedonian Orthodoxy under the auspices that Non-Chalcedonian "primativism" be honoured too as "Orthodox."

LOL “Non-Chalcedonian primitivism”? Where did you pull this nonsense from? As an OO who has studied the faith for many years, and who consistently engages with OO authorities, especially on matters relevant to Chalcedon, I have never heard of this “non-Chalcedonian primitivism”. Are your hierarchs making things up about my Church again?

THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL ESTABLISHES THE FRAMEWORK TO END IT.

Really? How? By anathematising our Orthodox Saints, and upholding a schismatic council? I don’t think so.

[Kollyvas]

I think that it is pointless to say anything further as you are committed to your resistance. "neo-papalism" or "montanism" or "ultra-montanism" implies YOUR SIDE DISMISSING CONCILIARITY and by its own judgements condemning other local churches and dioceses: yes, that's papal. Secondly, the paradigm of "resistance" predates even the arian controversies and, according to Eusebius, is even observed in cases of the corrupt teachings of early gnostics, viz. St. John and simon magus, WHERE THOSE PERCEIVED TO BE TEACHING heresy ARE EXCLUDED FROM COMMUNION. Again, and, succinctly, I have studied the Non Chalcedonian positions, their histories and am well aware of the pathos and bathos of their positions. I am content enough to know that you are not representative of it or their outlook. You fit in here perfectly because you are the descendent of the erstwhile type of resister many here would aspire to be. I suggest you review the FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL before writing further, for the language of Chalcedon is clearly defined in a manner acceptible to Ephesus. Now, I'm going to assume you didn't seek to attack me and that you were only venting--we all do that. The position or "strawman" I offer is the only Orthodox way you will re-enter Communion with the Church. If you view that as offensive or unnecessary, I really don't see a point for further communication. Lastly, there is no unique "oriental" anything--THERE ARE THE FATHERS, whom we are well aware of and faithful to...Anything you have further to say in addressing me should be based in the Fathers and the Holy Canons of the Church, whom you can debate. Anything else I will ignore as that which propagates a 1500 year old schism and is disconnected from the life in the Church. And, oh, the ecumenism of your communities is shameful AND UNWORTHY OF CHRIST! (BTW, the "Non-Chalcedonian" model for reunion with Orthodoxy is precisely "primitivism," where they believe since their faith is equivalent to the confessions of the first three ecumenical councils it is equivalent to Orthodoxy which has not undergone schism from the Church.)
R

[EkhristosAnesti]

I think that it is pointless to say anything further as you are committed to your resistance.

Now, I'm going to assume you didn't seek to attack me

(I put the above two quotations together since the point I wish to make relates to them both):

No, I do not seek to attack you. I seek to put you in your place. To throw you off your high horse in order that you may understand the fact that there is a lot more to the Orthodox rejection of Chalcedon then you make it out to be. I seek to get you to stop falsely presuming things on my Church’s behalf and to start asking questions. If you don’t trust my own representation of my own Church’s position, then I will quote you my Patriarchs and Bishops. It's that simple. I am not insulted by the fact that you wish to presume at face value that i'm incapable of honestly representing my own Church's position; in fact i'm flattered, it's indication that you're scared of me.

If you would like our discussion to be less polemical and confrontational, you may want to start by dropping epithets such as “group in resistance” when qualifying my Church. We do not resist your Council any less than your Council resisted us, and our Council (Ephesus 449), or any more than your Church resists RC Ecumenical Councils. We are no more a “group in resistance” than your own Church is a "group in resistance" in these contexts. My Church is not defined by its rejection of your Council, anymore than your Church is defined by its rejection of us, or RC Councils. My Church is defined by the positive faith affirmed in The Three Ecumenical Councils, upon the belief that those three Councils are the only Orthodox Universal Councils.

You can continue using such rhetoric however; it doesn't personally bother me - I will simply fling it right back at you – just don’t accuse me of seeking to attack you if that's how you decide to allow this discussion to continue. I have had very respectful dialogues with Chalcedonians in the past; it's not impossible; it's been done. It's up to you - I will meet you at your level.

"neo-papalism" or "montanism" or "ultra-montanism" implies YOUR SIDE DISMISSING CONCILIARITY and by its own judgements condemning other local churches and dioceses

AGAIN, you are intent on making the very same error of misrepresenting our position and committing the same logical fallacy oft committed in typical Chalcedonian polemics: the fallacy of begging the question; the fallacy of presupposing what you are yet to prove. The Orthodox Church rejected a schismatic and crypto-Nestorian Council when it rejected the Council of Chalcedon; in her eyes, she did not reject an Ecumenical Council - she rejected resistance and compromise to the Orthodox Faith. That is the subjective perspective of the Orthodox (Oriental) Church on this matter. You cannot presume Chalcedon to be an Ecumenical Council, to then conclude some heretical ecclesiological model and impose that on our Church (i.e. to import your own subjective perspective of the Council on us); that’s illogical and dishonest.

Any RC can consequently employ your illogical line of reasoning to condemn you of the same thing for rejecting their own so-called Ecumenical Councils. There is no consistency or objectivity in your argument - traits lacking in most, if not all, of the Chalcedonian arguments I have thus far encountered.

And exactly how are we condemning local Churches and dioceses? You need to start arguing your claims as opposed to merely asserting them as self-evident truths. I am Orthodox, you are Chalcedonian - we do not agree on the same presuppositions, so do not import them into this discussion. Prove them, and then if we both agree that you have sufficiently done so, THEN you may employ them.

Again, and, succinctly, I have studied the Non Chalcedonian positions, their histories and am well aware of the pathos and bathos of their positions. I am content enough to know that you are not representative of it or their outlook.

Oh really? Then I await you to quote our Orthodox authorities when making claims concerning the Orthodox position against the Chalcedonian resistance. Talk is cheap. I am sorry but I am not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, for I am more than confident of the fact that I know the position of my own Church better than you; it is very arrogant of you to presume you know my Church better than myself, and you will surely look very stupid by the end of this discussion if you continue to make such baseless and foolish claims without sufficient reason or evidence to back them up. I have read all the works of His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy, most of the works of His Grace the Late Paulos Mar Gregorios, and Fr. V.C. Samuel, the three most prominent OO authorities concerned with dialogue with the Chalcedonian Church; none of them have ever stated that they reject the four latter local councils merely because the OO Church (which is not merely representative of “local churches” mind you – are you forgetting the fact that the Church of Alexandria is a major Patriarchate?) was not physically present.

Again, instead of making a fool of yourself, I await you to do the wise and prudent thing, by asking me why the OO Church rejects Chalcedon. If you are so intent in copping out by trying to convince me that you, a Chalcedonian, are more aware of my Church’s own position, then I will quickly put you in your place, and even quote my Hierarchs on this issue to prove that you evidently have no idea what you are talking about.

I suggest you review the FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL before writing further,

I know all your Councils well enough, believe me.

for the language of Chalcedon is clearly defined in a manner acceptible to Ephesus.

Or to be more accurate, Chalcedon is interpreted in a manner that abrogates the clearly initial intent of Chalcedon. The Three Chapters are condemned, thereby overturning some key decisions of Chalcedon. You expect us to accept a council of schism (i.e. Chalcedon) that falsely ex-communicated an Orthodox Patriarch and that purported a crypto-Nestorian Christology which paved the way for a large heretical Theodorian movement, and the subsequent Council (Constantinople) which anachronistically interprets that former Council in a manner that in actual fact abrogates everything that Council stood for, and which steeps itself further in schismatic territory by anathematizing Holy Orthodox Fathers. That’s ridiculous.

The proper resolution to this dillemma is for the Chalcedonian Church to renounce these schismatic Councils and to return to the Church. The Church is the Church of the Three Ecumenical Councils, not 20 like the RC's or 7/8/9*** like the Eastern Chalcedonians.

***Interesting to note that your Church can't even decide how many Ecumenical Councils she has.

The position or "strawman" I offer is the only Orthodox way you will re-enter Communion with the Church.

Huh? Do you know what a strawman is? The strawman I was referring to was your false representation of the Orthodox argument against the acceptance of the latter four Councils. We do not reject those Councils merely because we were physically absent, so when you set this position up as our position, and then try and knock it down, you are in effect knocking down a straw man. There are more substantial and cogent reasons as to why the OO Church believes the latter four councils, to be anti-Ecumenical. Again, I await you to show just a little wisdom in this discussion, and to thus start asking questions rather than falsely presuming and consequently misrepresenting our position. This is not honest.

Again, I repeat; you may not be Orthodox, but you are still a Christian. You may be confused regarding how many Ecumenical Councils your Church has, or when the proper date for Christmas is, or other such confusions plaguing your Church, but you should at least be certain regarding the fact that HONESTY and WISDOM are basic Christian virtues.

Lastly, there is no unique "oriental" anything--THERE ARE THE FATHERS, whom we are well aware of and faithful to...Anything you have further to say in addressing me should be based in the Fathers and the Holy Canons of the Church

The only Fathers and Canons of the Church that we may import into this discussion as mutually accepted standards by which we can judge Chalcedon et al, and in turn the Chalcedonian Fathers/Canons and the Orthodox Fathers/Canons, are that of the pre-Chalcedonian Tradition.

But before we engage with this mutually accepted Tradition in order to vindicate the basis of the Orthodox rejection of Chalcedon, we must first understand what that basis is. So far, you have insisted on misrepresenting the Church’s position on this issue by arguing that it is based on the mere fact of our physical absence. I am telling you that there is clearly more to it than that. I await you to excercise a little Christian honesty by refraining from falsely presuming things on my Church's behalf, and to excercise a little Christian wisdom by seeking to understand my Church's position based on accurate sources of information (which lie on my desk as we speak).

[AndyHolland]

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them. But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.

Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.

And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

St. Maximos the Confessor:
"When all the people in Babylon were worshipping the golden idol, the Three Holy Youths did not condemn anyone to perdition. They did not concern themselves with what others were doing, but took care only for themselves, so as not to fall away from true piety. In precisely the same way, Daniel also, when cast into the den, did not condemn any of those who, in fulfilling the law of Darius, did not want to pray to God; but he bore in mind his duty, and desired rather to die than to sin and be tormented by his conscience for transgressing God's Law. God forbid that I, too, should condemn anyone, or say that I alone am being saved. However, I would sooner agree to die than, having apostatized in any way from the right faith, endure the torments of my conscience."

http://www.antiochian.org/print/saint_maximos

andy holland
sinner

[Kollyvas]

As it is clear you fail to appreciate what anyone else has to say, I take it you wish to enjoy the cacophonous sounds of your own voice. Like I said I am well aware of the various bathos associated with certain Non Chalcedonians. I told you that any further discussion would be predicated on your presentation of the Fathers & the Holy Canons and any schismatic propaganda would be duly disregarded. You have clearly failed to provide such a foundation for ANY of your positions but rather chose to arrogantly defame the Holy Orthodox Faith and its believers, WHICH YOU ARE NOT ONE OF. Put that in its place. As such, I don't think that hours of scrawlings would convince you of anything but your schism. I engaged you and your model of "primitive Orthodoxy" knowing well the fruitlessness of any exchanges with you as I've seen your rants on other boards. I did this for the benefit of the readership here as a warning, THAT THOSE WHO TRESPASS THE BOUNDS OF CONCILIARITY AND ACT AS popes JUDGING THE CHURCH leave it and no goodly amount of exhortations seems to do much benefit. You see, the spirit motivating you poisons some groups in resistance as well. Of course, most Non-Chalcedonians don't engage Orthodoxy the way you do: they approached us first for unity in the mid-60s with no qualms then over the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils, but the filth of ecclesiological relativism known as "ecumenism" poisoned the minds of sectarians bearing the name of Orthodox and prevented them from capitalizing on such an opportunity; indeed, this ecumenist riff raff found the idea of mass conversions offensive. Moreover, Non Chalcedonians are fed up with dhimmitude and visions of future caliphates of the red fez, and we are also aware that in your ranks there are many "double agents" infected with the demoniac ravings of the pedophile mohammed. The majority are not with you but want Orthodoxy. As far as your "orthodoxy," etc., a clear symptom that you are without merit in your pretensions are the pronouncements of your hierarchs at the recent Brazilian bacchanal which endorsed "inclusive models of sexuality" among other sectarian things and were full in lock step with branch theory ecclesiology. Your own exchanges with the nestorians illustrate your very lacking prospects of accomplishing any models of unity. So you puff smoke while your majorities speak of "Orthodox families" while their hierarchs commit ever more infamous acts of moral and doctrinal compromise. Provocateurs like yourself lay at the fringes compelled by your wahabbi patrons to disrupt the prospect of Non Chalcedonian reintegration into Orthodoxy, FOR YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WILL EVENTUALLY SPELL. Really you have no clothes. Further communication with you is unnecessary as you aren't interested in Orthodoxy and you have nothing to offer discussion.
R
Perhaps others will praise you for the moral relativism of your sectarian ecumenism and your lack of Patristic and Canonical foundations, but Orthodoxy has no use for your rhetoric of schism. Express that thought at the mosque on friday.