Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
COE and Easter Orthodox
#3
I'll tackle the issues from easiest to most difficult...
The issue of church authority. The Orthodox share an ecclesiastical model with the COE. When we mention "primus enter pares" we only mean that political and historical honor is recognized. For instance, Rome was the capitol and, therefore, its bishop had a certain role to play as the bishop of the capitol city (later Constantinople would also have this recognized). This does not mean that one patriarch is in submission to any other but rather that the ancient see's venerable history is recognized by formalities such as the Patriarch of Constantinople would be like the oldest priest in a given liturgical celebration. In fact, we are more accepting than the COE of episcopal independence because each bishop is totally the Peter of our time and the Andrew of our age (forgive the shabby quoting, but it's from memory) since many of our fathers--especially the Syriac ones--saw Peter as the Rock, like Rome, but unlike Rome saw his episcopacy shared by all bishops equally. Ie, the bishop of Los Angeles (a see barely two years old) is the successor of Peter in a total way the same as the bishop of Constantinople or Alexandria--the entire episcopacy is manifested in each bishop but it is also the one universal episcopacy. But we have Patriarch, Archbishop, Metropolitan, Bishop as seperate rankings for administrative reasons. The Patriarch or Archbishop must call a synod meeting to order twice a year and see to the well being of the Church. We would never force an independent Church that shares the apostolic faith with us to submit to one of our bishops. Unfortunately, because of he millet system, sometimes the bishop of Constantinople calls himself the "father of the worlds Orthodox", but this is silly to the ears of most Orthodoxy and is not, nor has ever been, the actual practice. The only body that can speak for the Church as a whole is an Ecumenical Synod (a council of the entire "household" oikos). So the COE would never have to submit to any Orthodox bishop but, were there a re-union, would be an independent Church with it's ancient see recognized as an independent patriarchate. Our Patriarchs are not quite as dominant as the COE's since we were a millet for a shorter time period.

Issue #2. Speaking as a layman and not anyone who has political authority. I can not imagine the Orthodox refusing to dialouge with the COE. We dialouge with the non-Chalcedonians without them rejecting anyone. Now the Coptic "Orthodox" Church of Alexandria is rather nasty towards Nestorius and will not even allow the COE to join the Middle Easter Council of Churches until they reject Nestorius. We have nothing to do with the Copts, Syriani, Armenians, Eritrians, or Ethiopians as they schisimed with us 1600 years ago. I believe it is them and not us that will not speak to you. Sadily, it may be that when the Copts refused the COE, it was taken as the Orthodox refusing, which are totally seperate.

The issue of Nestorius is tricky. Firstly, he was anathemized in the Christian West, so the COE has no authority over these decisions. Why should the COE have any right to declair a Wester synodal decision invalid when they were not at any one council nor part of the discussion. Should the Orthodox require the COE to change its anathemas against Khnana of Adiabne, etc because he may have been wronged? The debates that happened in the West were often delivered to the COE in a very convoluted manner that resulted in some strange descriptions of Western theology; that the westerners believed in two half natures, etc. If the COE should be respected as an independent Church that never was nor could have been under the rule of Ecumenical Synods, why should it be going beyond its rights in deciding of the results of those synods. This is a point of ecclesiastical polity and respect. I don't believe the Beth Lapeh and the heralding of Nestorius was based on theology but on a purposeful distancing of the COE from the West in a time that the Roman Empire was the avowed enemy of Persia. That is why marriage was forced on celibates in the same council.
Now, the Theodore question is much more open to debate given that his theology posses less difficulties. Rather, his anathemization by the Fifth Council is what is difficult for many Orthodox since HE WAS DEAD at the time. The reality of the anathemas of the 3 Chapters is that they were an attempt at reconcilliation by St Justinian, who was ready to anathemize a couple of dead fathers for the sake of Church unity. He is loved by as many if not more Orthodox scholors than hated by others. He wrote within the context of apollinarianism and he context serves to help understand his strong diophysite stance. Nestorius, no the other hand, is more murky. Yes, the book of Heraclides certainly shows that he didn't believe the NestorianISM that Cyril condemned him of--that there are two Christs or two persons. But one must be careful to show that he does believe Christ to be one divine person in two natures. Personally, I have just begun to enter into the issue of Nestorius' christology and have not read the book of heraklides (much), so I am only pointing at some issues. We believe Christ to be a Divine Person (that suffered) with a human nature (that suffered) and a divine nature (that didn't suffer).
In the end, I think that unity must always be the coming together of two groups that believe the same faith. Rome is much more welcoming with issues like Nestorianism and doctrine since once you're unified, they own you--you're a "particular church" and it doesn't matter what you believed. We only want to resolve divisions in a un-hypocritical fashion by acknowledging a shared faith which means holding one communion and demonstrating in that communion the un-breakable body of Christ. Furthermore, I believe that the missionary spirit of the COE is dormant if not dead and that the Church needs the support of the Orthodox to escape the millet mentality. By coming together, we can share our reflections on missioning to America. Here at the US' flagship Orthodox Seminary, bringing the faith to America is always on the mind. Most students are converts and the sons of Converts. I am not saying that the Orthodox can fix the doctrines of the COE, or that money is the issue. I would like to see COE students study here where the Eastern model of Christianity is being brought to America since there is little Assyrian diaspora anymore. We are mostly sons of immigrants and therefore not immigrants but US americans. For the COE to live if must mission to America, since that is who their children are (applied likewise to Europe and Australia). Our, COE and Orthodox, clergy need to be prepared to bring the faith to Americans and not be merely Roman trained scholors. We need to know our faith as it is taught within the ancient context and understand the modern context in order to bring the modern person to see the Ancient and eternal Christ.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
COE and Easter Orthodox - by aalkhas - 11-27-2007, 04:52 AM
Re: COE and Easter Orthodox - by Paul Younan - 11-27-2007, 03:58 PM
Re: COE and Easter Orthodox - by aalkhas - 12-02-2007, 09:18 PM
Re: COE and Easter Orthodox - by Paul Younan - 12-03-2007, 04:12 AM
Re: COE and Easter Orthodox - by aalkhas - 12-18-2007, 10:18 PM
Re: COE and Easter Orthodox - by Paul Younan - 12-19-2007, 12:51 AM
Re: COE and Easter Orthodox - by aalkhas - 12-19-2007, 08:46 AM
Re: COE and Easter Orthodox - by Paul Younan - 12-19-2007, 03:41 PM
Re: COE and Easter Orthodox - by aalkhas - 12-19-2007, 06:48 PM
Re: COE and Easter Orthodox - by Paul Younan - 12-19-2007, 09:33 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)