Coptic (but strongly considering Maronite)

[Chaldean_Rite]

Well the Maronites are interesting and don’t worry about the filioque the Catholic church teaches that

lol, ok buddy!

 

[Madaglan]

Well the Maronites are interesting and don’t worry about the filioque the Catholic church teaches that it was not in the original creed and not required for use none of the eastren right churches have ever used the verison of the creed with the filioque in it and I pefer not to use it it originated in Spain to defend aginst a herresy saying Christ was created and not always there I strongly hope for reunion but I must let you know I don’t t Maronites are of the belief of the duel natures of Christ
Good luck on your Journey

Did the period key on your keyboard break or something?

Just jesting.

 

[Formosus]

Well the Maronites are interesting and don’t worry about the filioque the Catholic church teaches that it was not in the original creed and not required for use none of the eastren right churches have ever used the verison of the creed with the filioque in it and I pefer not to use it it originated in Spain to defend aginst a herresy saying Christ was created and not always there I strongly hope for reunion but I must let you **know I don’t t Maronites are of the belief of the duel natures of Christ **
Good luck on your Journey

I don’t really understand what your post is trying to say, but Maronites do most certainly beleive in the the Council of Calcedon. Actually the first fillioque- esqe statement in a creed was found in the Assyrian Church of the east nearly a hundred years before it was found in Spain.

 

[Formosus]

As for the maronite shrine in youngstown ,OH. From what I have seen it looks pretty latinized sadly. The Maronite Church is in a period of rediscovering her lost traditions and it will take some time for this to occur.

 

[Madaglan]

I don’t really understand what your post is trying to say, but Maronites do most certainly beleive in the the Council of Calcedon. Actually the first fillioque- esqe statement in a creed was found in the Assyrian Church of the east nearly a hundred years before it was found in Spain.

I think what he is trying to say is that the Maronites subscribe to the “two natures/physis” understanding of Christ: Jesus Christ is two natures (one human, one divine) in one person/hypostasis. The Chalcedonian Churches (Latin Church, Byzantine Churches, etc.) all subscribe to this expression.

Those who rejected the Council of Chalcedon (451), however, are called non-Chalcedonians and miaphysites (or* monophysites*, although this term is not considered appropriate nowadays). The Coptic Christians, both Orthodox and Catholic, believe in the one incarnate nature of God the Logos. They do not subscribe to a two natures Christology.

So, for the OP to move from Coptic Orthodox to Maronite Catholic, he would be put in the position of accepting a different Christology.

 

[Yasouna]

Madaglan:

Sometimes the EO seem to have a tendency to equate Eastern Christianity with the Byzantine tradition. The Maronite Church comes from the Syriac tradition and thus would not and should not have an iconostasis.

I wouldn’t say “should not have an iconostasis” rather there is alot of evidence to sugest that it is a part of our lost tradition considering all eastern churches have them bar the Maronites and we are trying to get away from our Latinization it holds very strong that we should have an iconostasis or atleast a sanctury curtain.

 

[Addai]

I wouldn’t say “should not have an iconostasis” rather there is alot of evidence to sugest that it is a part of our lost tradition considering all eastern churches have them bar the Maronites and we are trying to get away from our Latinization it holds very strong that we should have an iconostasis or atleast a sanctury curtain./QUOTE

I don’t think it is really a part of the Syriac Tradition (historically speaking in its origins). With this tangent I just started to brush up on the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch. (I didn’t remember it being a part of that Tradition but its been a while since I’ve read up on the liturgical details of that Church/ rite). In my readings of the Syriac Tradition, the curtain seems to be the original authentic Syriac practice. The curtain taken from the liturgy of St. james seems to be original or earliest Christian tradition. Even the Bzantines achnowedge that the iconostasis in their church originated from this earlier tradition.

If the Iconostasis is part of the Syriac tradition (Which I’m sure it is as part of a minority liturgical practice). I’m sure its origins would mirror what would be true for the Coptic practice. Basically a later adoption of an admitted Byzantine tradition whcih was done because of the rise and popularity of icongraphy in the Church. But I would suspect any Syriacs (other then Antiochians) might have adopted it much much earlier then we did (I remember reading somewhere that the Coptic Church didn’t adopt this till somewhere around the 1600s! But used the curtain instead).

But if you were to study where the liturgical consensus of the Syriac Church / traditions are. I’m sure it would be the use of curtains over the iconostasis. Because that gives the most direct Antiochene Typal reference of the New Testament and later Church as the “Temple of God”.

 

[Yasouna]

Well the Maronites are interesting and don’t worry about the filioque the Catholic church teaches that it was not in the original creed and not required for use none of the eastren right churches have ever used the verison of the creed with the filioque in it and I pefer not to use it it originated in Spain to defend aginst a herresy saying Christ was created and not always there I strongly hope for reunion but I must let you know I don’t t Maronites are of the belief of the duel natures of Christ
Good luck on your Journey

I dont know where you get your infomation from but the Maronites DO very much so mention the filioque in the creed and it has been a common tradition from my village that when we profess the creed at the point of the filioque the whole church together makes a deep bow this is a sign of our acknowledgment and belief in it.

 

[Yasouna]

But if you were to study where the liturgical consensus of the Syriac Church / traditions are. I’m sure it would be the use of curtains over the iconostasis. Because that gives the most direct Antiochene Typal reference of the New Testament and later Church as the “Temple of God”.

I have a question in regards to this I have spoken to people about the idea of a santuary curtain but the response i get is that Christ tore the curtain of the temple so we shouldnt put one back up

what could i say in response to that?

 

[Peter_J]

I have a question in regards to this I have spoken to people about the idea of a santuary curtain but the response i get is that Christ tore the curtain of the temple so we shouldnt put one back up

what could i say in response to that?

I’m not recommending this as something to say to them; but just my first thought is that it’s like those Catholics who say “why don’t you want to receive communion on the hand? Christ said ‘take and eat’!”

 

[Ghosty]

I wouldn’t say “should not have an iconostasis” rather there is alot of evidence to sugest that it is a part of our lost tradition considering all eastern churches have them bar the Maronites and we are trying to get away from our Latinization it holds very strong that we should have an iconostasis or atleast a sanctury curtain.

Most Eastern traditions actually don’t use the Iconostasis; it’s primarily a Byzantine thing. The only other tradition I’m aware of that uses the Iconostasis is the Coptic, and I wonder if that isn’t from the influence of Byzantine Greeks as well.

In fact, the Iconostasis is a “late development” according to Eastern Orthodox scholars I’ve read, such as Fr. Alexander Schmemann. According to them, it was originally asimilar to an “altar rail” or “rood screen” type design, like what you’d find in traditional Latin churches, and the Icons were originally placed in front of it and on top of it as a kind of sacred decoration after the Seventh Ecumenical Council. As time went on it became a regular part of the Byzantine devotion, and the Iconostasis was developed to contain all of the Icons that were placed at the altar rail.

This development happened long after the split between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox, and didn’t develop into its modern style until well after even the split between the Latins and the Byzantines. You can read a brief history about it here:

byzantines.net/epiphany/iconostasis.htm

Peace and God bless!

 

[Addai]

I dont know where you get your infomation from but the Maronites DO very much so mention the filioque in the creed and it has been a common tradition from my village that when we profess the creed at the point of the filioque the whole church together makes a deep bow this is a sign of our acknowledgment and belief in it.

Well in all fairness Altar server is 13 years old (according to his public profile). I’m sure he’s a very mature 13 to be posting here, but people should cut him some slack if he doesn’t express himself very well, and makes mis statements.

 

[Addai]

I have a question in regards to this I have spoken to people about the idea of a santuary curtain but the response i get is that Christ tore the curtain of the temple so we shouldnt put one back up

what could i say in response to that?

Well I note a few things. And by the way I’ve encountered this Protestant objection a number of times.

1. I note that God tore the curtain and not actually ripped it completely down. He affectively opened up the Holy Hollies (which would allow the levites and others serving in the inner sanctuary to see in).

I see what he did as analogous to the way we use that curtain. The sanctuary where the altar is open during the Divine Liturgy. The Armenian Soorp Badarack is a great example of this. The curtain closes during the consecration (punctuating the holiness and solemity of the event). But its the fact the curtain is parted (much like the ripped curtain) that allows this kind of punctuation and symbolism to occur that reinforces both openess and welcome, but also holiness and solemity during the most sacred parts of the service.

1. On this general subject I also like to talk about Eisogenesis (Biblical Interpretation based on reading into the text rather then interpretation based on grammaric rules). Protestants basically often like to take big leaps of logic when reading the Bible, and act like they are somehow self evident, or what the Bible is actually stating (as if its an interpretation based on a clear grammaric rule). And this is simply not the case! None of the early Church folks had this kind of reading of scripture except groups like certain gnostic sects who despised ritualism. So one might try to approach it from the Angle of the assumptions we make about the Text.

When talking to Protestants I point out, if God truely meant for the temple to be destroyed he could have done so! He could have literally caused it to fall apart, leaving everyone in it miraculously unharmed! (This would have left no doubt what his intentions were regarding this issue and others directly pertaining to it).

Why didn’t he?

1. The Orthodox (and Catholic) answer is God is about restoration and fulfillment. He allowed the temple to remain because he wanted it to be redeemed (It was already a set aside Holy place of worship). The OT images like the sacrificial lamb were types of Christ. He kept it to show His fulfillment of the Old covenant. That he keeps his promises. Not to mention the temple was handy place to preach the Gospel… and I believe had the Israelites been willing this would have been the first Cathedral (the eucharist sacrifice would be offered literally in place of the sacrifices and sin offerings).

But as I said, if God wanted to end sacramentalism he could have done so dramatically. He however did not end it by ripping the curtain, he only modified it. or more exactly, he completed it and brought the people of God into a New Covenant. Therefore it is proper to keep some of those old traditions in modified form as reminder of the Old Covenant, and a sign continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament. And the book of Revelation with its temple like imagery in heaven is also reinforcer of this paradigm . If there are still more Protestant doubts (nothing more reflects God’s will then what is done in heaven. It is the epitomy of perfection and “His Will being done”).

1. And of course at some point I also talk about the Marcionites. Because many Protestants also often have a disconect between seeing the need for reconciling both covenants together. Essentially seeing the Old Testament as almost being completely obsolete etc. So I usually go into a side discussion on that. And get into other supporting discussions like the time frame the NT canon was put together. How the OT canon was the “Bible” of the church for the first few centuries, and why it was especially relevant to reference it constantly during worship etc.

So that’s the basic way I’ve dealt with in a dozen or so internet discussions on this subject over the years,

 

[Madaglan]

Most Eastern traditions actually don’t use the Iconostasis; it’s primarily a Byzantine thing. The only other tradition I’m aware of that uses the Iconostasis is the Coptic, and I wonder if that isn’t from the influence of Byzantine Greeks as well.

In fact, the Iconostasis is a “late development” according to Eastern Orthodox scholars I’ve read, such as Fr. Alexander Schmemann. According to them, it was originally asimilar to an “altar rail” or “rood screen” type design, like what you’d find in traditional Latin churches, and the Icons were originally placed in front of it and on top of it as a kind of sacred decoration after the Seventh Ecumenical Council. As time went on it became a regular part of the Byzantine devotion, and the Iconostasis was developed to contain all of the Icons that were placed at the altar rail.

This development happened long after the split between the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox, and didn’t develop into its modern style until well after even the split between the Latins and the Byzantines. You can read a brief history about it here:

byzantines.net/epiphany/iconostasis.htm

Peace and God bless!

Of course, just to note: icons predated the controversy of Nicaea II.

I would be interested in tracing the development of the Coptic iconostasis. The city of Alexandria remained a major port, and it may be that, even after the Arabs conquered Egypt, there still was cross-exchange of theological ideas through trade. Also: Islam tends to be “iconoclastic,” and perhaps the Copts adopted an iconostasis to clearly distinguish their beliefs from Islam.

I remember reading several years ago a book on Coptic history in which it mentioned how there has tended to be waves of iconoclasm in the Coptic church.

I’m going to ask the Copts at coptichymns.org and get back to you.

 

[Ghosty]

Of course, just to note: icons predated the controversy of Nicaea II.

I would be interested in tracing the development of the Coptic iconostasis. The city of Alexandria remained a major port, and it may be that, even after the Arabs conquered Egypt, there still was cross-exchange of theological ideas through trade. Also: Islam tends to be “iconoclastic,” and perhaps the Copts adopted an iconostasis to clearly distinguish their beliefs from Islam.

I remember reading several years ago a book on Coptic history in which it mentioned how there has tended to be waves of iconoclasm in the Coptic church.

I’m going to ask the Copts at coptichymns.org and get back to you.

I look forward to hearing what you learn.

Icons definitely predate the Seventh Council, of course, or else there wouldn’t have BEEN a Seventh Council. I find it interesting that it’s the Churches that stood furthest outside Muslim influence that have both painted images and statues of Sacred subjects (Russians, while not having a major tradition of statuary, seemed to have a tradition of three-dimensional depictions of angels). I wonder if this is directly related with Muslim dominance?

Peace and God bless!

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I have a question in regards to this I have spoken to people about the idea of a santuary curtain but the response i get is that Christ tore the curtain of the temple so we shouldnt put one back up

what could i say in response to that?

You could point out that the curtain was there (in the temple) to conceal the God-pleasing, Divinely-ordained sacrifice of the Old Covenant. With Christ’s sacrifice, the temple sacrifice had passed - Christ accomplished a more perfect and pleasing sacrifice which from there would constitute the covenant.

More plainly Temple sacrifice no longer was of Divine mandate and demanding concealment - it affected nothing from that moment on and was rendered obsolete. The sacrifice had moved to the altars of the Christians. A widow no longer needs a wedding dress - she passes it on to her virgin daughter who has use for it.

 

[Formosus]

Well maronites and other western syriacs most likely used a curtain like the Syriac Catholic and Orthodox Churches use today.

 

[Madaglan]

I look forward to hearing what you learn.

Icons definitely predate the Seventh Council, of course, or else there wouldn’t have BEEN a Seventh Council. I find it interesting that it’s the Churches that stood furthest outside Muslim influence that have both painted images and statues of Sacred subjects (Russians, while not having a major tradition of statuary, seemed to have a tradition of three-dimensional depictions of angels). I wonder if this is directly related with Muslim dominance?

Peace and God bless!

Of course. What I meant is that icons have a history going long back before Nicaea II.

If your theory is correct, then we should find plenty of statues in Ireland, Iceland, England, and the Scandanavian countries, while very few in Spain and those countries in the New World colonized by Spain just recently after the Reconquista. .

 

[Madaglan]

I look forward to hearing what you learn.

Icons definitely predate the Seventh Council, of course, or else there wouldn’t have BEEN a Seventh Council. I find it interesting that it’s the Churches that stood furthest outside Muslim influence that have both painted images and statues of Sacred subjects (Russians, while not having a major tradition of statuary, seemed to have a tradition of three-dimensional depictions of angels). I wonder if this is directly related with Muslim dominance?

Peace and God bless!

I editted but did not make the 20 minute limit… This is what I wanted to add:

If your theory is correct, then we should find plenty of statues in Ireland, Iceland, England, and the Scandanavian countries, while very few in Spain (and those countries in the New World colonized by Spain just recently after the Reconquista) as well as in the city-states of Italy that traded with the Muslims. This would be an interesting subject for investigation. The vast majority of European states were affected by Muslim influence to more or less a degree by the Crusades, but it would seem the northern-most countries were least influenced directly.

If you have the chance, you might want to read Bernal Diaz’s account of the Conquest of New Spain. Whichever new town the conquistadors enter, they set up an image of Our Lady. I often wondered, while reading the book, what the image looked like. The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe invariably pops into my head, but I have to remind myself that that came later.

 

[Addai]

Of course, just to note: icons predated the controversy of Nicaea II.

I would be interested in tracing the development of the Coptic iconostasis. The city of Alexandria remained a major port, and it may be that, even after the Arabs conquered Egypt, there still was cross-exchange of theological ideas through trade. Also: Islam tends to be “iconoclastic,” and perhaps the Copts adopted an iconostasis to clearly distinguish their beliefs from Islam.

I remember reading several years ago a book on Coptic history in which it mentioned how there has tended to be waves of iconoclasm in the Coptic church.

I’m going to ask the Copts at coptichymns.org and get back to you.

Well wiki had something good on their Coptic architecture article

Iconostasis

Example of modern Coptic Iconostasis of at St Mary and St Mercurius Coptic Orthodox Church in WalesThe screen known as the iconostasis separating the sanctuary from the main body of the church is one of the main features of any Coptic church. The Coptic iconostasis is usually less completely composed of icons than the Eastern Orthodox one, although there will always be several. It is usually made of ebony and sometimes inlaid with ivory like that in Saint Mary Church (Harat Zewila).

The iconostasis of Saint Mary Church in Harat Zewila in Old Cairo, rebuilt after 1321, shows the mixture of stylistic elements in Coptic architecture. The basic plan is that of the basilica, and recycled ancient columns are used. The older woodwork is Islamic in style, as are the Muqarnas in the pendentives, and a Gothic revival rood cross surmounts the iconostasis. This uses Islamic abstract motifs, which is also common. Some screens are pierced rather than solid.

There are many examples of Coptic iconostasis that predate the earliest surviving Eastern and Western counterparts.[9]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_architecture

I’m trying to remember about that 1600 date I read, perhaps that was when it was made standard to all the Coptic churches. Oh well…