Ecclesiology question on ACOE

[JMJ_coder]

I pray for the day when such relations will be re-established.

AMEN! AMEN!

 

[mardukm]

Could you give me more information on this?

The issue goes back to the days of the Third Ecumenical Council. As you know, it was Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria, with the support and approbation of his elder brother in Rome, who spearheaded the condemnation of Nestorius and his doctrines (though Nestorius himself IIRC submitted his will to the Church - perhaps brother Antgaria or our other Chaldean brethren can give us more information if he is reading this).

During the talks between the COC and ACOE in 1994 (headed by HE Bishoy), a groundwork for an agreed Christological statement was laid. Without any explicit statement from the ACOE, the COC expected a full rejection of Nestorius from the ACOE. However, in subsequent meetings with the Catholic Church at Pro Oriente meetings (where the COC was present as an observer), it became obvious that the ACOE was not intending to repudiate Nestorius and his teachings, but simply to rehabilitate his image by attempting to explain that the Nestorius has been misunderstood, similar to how Pope Dioscorus was rehabilitated in the minds of the Chalcedonians.

HE Bishoy took this as a deceitful act by the ACOE, reported his views to HH Shenoute (who then communicated the report to his fellow OO Patriarchs, as well as to HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory).

And that is where we are at.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Addai]

Dear brother malphono,

I can p(name removed by moderator)oint an approximate date for the cold relations between the Coptic Church and the Catholic Church - 1994. This was when talks between the two churches were broken off. Why? It was the same year that the Catholic Church signed a Christological agreement with the ACOE. The COC and the ACOE are historic “enemies”, I’m VERY saddened to say. HH Pope Shenoute was quite vocal at the time in expressing his concerns to HH JP2 of thrice-blessed memory. Of course, the media has not reported the obvious connection between the two events, for good reason, IMHO.

This is the main source of all the more recent anti-Catholic sentiments within the COC (e.g. the statement by HE Bishoy in recent memory that Catholics are bound for hell along with the Protestants).

I have experience being on both sides of the issue. It’s not just that. One huge sore spot was the ACOE having Nestorius counted as an official major saint. Since he was the arch enemy of Alexandria naturally that would sour the Coptic view of such negotatiations unless the Assyrians immediately repudiated him etc. on the opening of such talks.

 

[antgaria]

Dear all,

Great (name removed by moderator)ut into this discussion!!!

In regards to the classic problems between the Church of the East and the Coptic Church, it should be remembered that until recently, the ACOE and COC had mutual curses in place. Eg, the ACOE had anathemas on Sts. Cyril and Severus {both highly venerated saints in Oriental Orthodoxy}. The ACOE has long lifted these in their response to ecumenical talks that it was undertaking. The COC however has not reciprocated as of yet.

The Coptic Orthodox stance on ecumenical talks with the Assyrians, and their response to the 1994 CCD between the ACOE and the Catholic Church, is most apparent and confrontational in the writings of H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy and can be found at his site.

I have read his papers presented there, and his presentation/objections in the Pro Oriente non-official dialogue. It is honestly hard not to get frustrated in that he is insistent in referring to the Church of the East theological terms in the way that he understands them. So whereas scholars have done a nice job in presenting the meaning of qnoma and how the peculiar usage of the CotE can be shown to reconcile its beliefs with those of Chalcedon, he insists on using the terms in his own understanding which the Eastern Syriac Church obviously did not share.

Furthermore, from my understanding, the CCD cleared the way for understanding that the ACOE did not hold to a “nestorian” heresy, as their confession that:

The Word of God, second Person of the Holy Trinity, became incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit in assuming from the holy Virgin Mary a body animated by a rational soul, with which he was indissolubly united from the moment of his conception.

This statement can not nestorian! The full CCD can be found here.

H.E. Bishoy however remains obstinate in his position and refuses to see what is being said. For some reason the Christotokos/Theotokos issue is still to him proof that the ACOE is nestorian. Even in the face of this statement from the CCD:

In the light of this same faith the Catholic tradition addresses the Virgin Mary as “the Mother of God” and also as “the Mother of Christ”. We both recognize the legitimacy and rightness of these expressions of the same faith and we both respect the preference of each Church in her liturgical life and piety.

His position and desire seems to be to not only take away the roles of Nestorius and Theodore from the CotE, but also those of Mar Narsai and Mar Bawai the great and the rest of the venerated Church of the East saints and fathers. The latter is something that the ACOE can never do without losing her apostolic identity.

If the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox is rocky because of the Syriac Dialogs and CCD, then it is very sad indeed that the latter cannot see that these dialogs are not only working to reconcile a Church long ago split from the Catholic Church, but also to make sure that the orthodox teaching faith is maintained and clear. They affirm the Christ, and they affirm that the Holy Mother is the “theotokos” and that the usage is not to be questioned by orthodoxy.

If that is the case, I hope and pray that H.H. Pope Shenouda will not remain in such a mind set, but will allow the Holy Spirit to guide him and his Chruch into reconciliation and reunion with the Catholic Church.

In Him,
Anthony

 

[antgaria]

Dear Mardukm,

You are correct in that Nestorius himself submitted to the Church. He refused to testify for himself, wanting to wait until John of Antioch and his bishops arrived, thinking to have more support from them. Cyril had the council proceed without John. Nestorius was to be exiled. When John arrived, there is the whole discussion that led to a peace being settled between John and Cyril, but Nestorius was to be sacrificed in the peace. Nestorius submitted and is even said to have said for the sake of the unity of the Church Nestorius be damned, or some words like that {I’m away from my books and can’t look up the exact words}.

You are correct that HE Bishoy expected the ACOE to immediately dump Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorius. By the way, Nestorius is more of a banner name, but really the Church of the East had always held Theodore highly, calling him the divine interpreter of the Scriptures. When you see old documents refer to “the interpreter”, it is Theodore who is being cited. This was not something that could have been expected by the Coptic Orthodox hierarchs, especially right off the bat. What church would come and say right off, after more than a thousand years, “uhm, I think we don’t like these saints of ours and we want to dump them”?

I totally understand the aggressive behavior of Cyril in stamping out what he perceived to be a major heresy. I think that if Rome had been involved closer, and if John of Antioch had been there, there could have been reconciliation, and a condemnation of the nestorian heresy, without necessarily sacrificing Nestorius. I believe that the abomination that Cyril saw was an abomination, and there were people who held the nestorian heresy, but at the same time, I believe that our Church of the East did not hold that view, and neither did John of Antioch, or Theodore, or some others.

In the above paragraphs I have avoided saying saint so as not to upset either Assyrians or Coptics. Now that I am talking only of St. Cyril, I will say saint, as he truly is, and the Catholic Church has declared him thus. I like St. Cyril and I think I would have shared his temperament, and I myself am probably more rash and prone to overreaction then any of the people involved in the whole controversy. I think that if I had a walking stick, I would have knocked many people {who I hear saying things wrong} over the head with it, or rather I should say them as I’d be breaking several of them each year.

In Christ,
Anthony

 

[JMJ_coder]

You are correct in that Nestorius himself submitted to the Church. He refused to testify for himself, wanting to wait until John of Antioch and his bishops arrived, thinking to have more support from them. Cyril had the council proceed without John. Nestorius was to be exiled. When John arrived, there is the whole discussion that led to a peace being settled between John and Cyril, but Nestorius was to be sacrificed in the peace. Nestorius submitted and is even said to have said for the sake of the unity of the Church Nestorius be damned, or some words like that {I’m away from my books and can’t look up the exact words}.

Wouldn’t this humility of Nestorius and his love of Christ’s Church and its unity be evidence of his sanctity – even if he was mistaken on some points of doctrine?

I like St. Cyril and I think I would have shared his temperament, and I myself am probably more rash and prone to overreaction then any of the people involved in the whole controversy.

When I first read “On the Unity of Christ” I thought - wow! this man really knows how to insult someone.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Anthony,

You are correct in that Nestorius himself submitted to the Church. He refused to testify for himself, wanting to wait until John of Antioch and his bishops arrived, thinking to have more support from them. Cyril had the council proceed without John. Nestorius was to be exiled. When John arrived, there is the whole discussion that led to a peace being settled between John and Cyril, but Nestorius was to be sacrificed in the peace. Nestorius submitted and is even said to have said for the sake of the unity of the Church Nestorius be damned, or some words like that {I’m away from my books and can’t look up the exact words}.

You are correct that HE Bishoy expected the ACOE to immediately dump Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorius. By the way, Nestorius is more of a banner name, but really the Church of the East had always held Theodore highly, calling him the divine interpreter of the Scriptures. When you see old documents refer to “the interpreter”, it is Theodore who is being cited. This was not something that could have been expected by the Coptic Orthodox hierarchs, especially right off the bat. What church would come and say right off, after more than a thousand years, “uhm, I think we don’t like these saints of ours and we want to dump them”?

I totally understand the aggressive behavior of Cyril in stamping out what he perceived to be a major heresy. I think that if Rome had been involved closer, and if John of Antioch had been there, there could have been reconciliation, and a condemnation of the nestorian heresy, without necessarily sacrificing Nestorius. I believe that the abomination that Cyril saw was an abomination, and there were people who held the nestorian heresy, but at the same time, I believe that our Church of the East did not hold that view, and neither did John of Antioch, or Theodore, or some others.

In the above paragraphs I have avoided saying saint so as not to upset either Assyrians or Coptics. Now that I am talking only of St. Cyril, I will say saint, as he truly is, and the Catholic Church has declared him thus. I like St. Cyril and I think I would have shared his temperament, and I myself am probably more rash and prone to overreaction then any of the people involved in the whole controversy. I think that if I had a walking stick, I would have knocked many people {who I hear saying things wrong} over the head with it, or rather I should say them as I’d be breaking several of them each year.

Thank you for your awesome, and eagerly-awaited (name removed by moderator)ut. I believe that most of the animus comes from HE Bishoy. Judging from talks with fellow Copts on the matter back in the '90’s, HE Bishoy took the APPARENT turn-around in the ACOE’s position on Nestorius as a personal attack. IMHO, I think perhaps he misinterpreted the intentions of the ACOE at the 1994 meeting, reported wrongly to HH Pope Shenoute, and was frankly embarassed when his personal expectations turned out to be wrong. I believe HE Bishoy to be a holy man, but he is only human.

People should understand that HE Bishoy is the Secretary of the Holy Synod (of the COC), so his views carry a lot of weight. People should be aware of the fact, as stated, that most anti-Catholic statements have come from HE Bishoy, while HH Pope Shenoute has, at best, remained silent on the matter. I believe that HH Pope Shenoute is far from anti-Catholic, and, brother Anthony, I share your hope that HH will eventually do the right thing with regards to relations with the Catholic Church, and (prayerfully) with the ACOE.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

HH Shenouda refused the request of several bishops for censure of HE Bishoy over the needlessly hostile anti-catholic rhetoric, especially in light of the extant recognitions.

That’s a pretty strong endorsement of Bishoy.

I read about this on the COC’s website.

Then again, the corresponding role of the COC’s Patriarch in the Oriental Orthodox Communion is a focal point of unity, not a Patriarch fo Patriarchs…

So it is possible that communion could exist without full union. (It would require addenda to Catholic Canon Law, both CIC and CCEO… 1 line in each of 3 or 4 canons each.)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

HH Shenouda refused the request of several bishops for censure of HE Bishoy over the needlessly hostile anti-catholic rhetoric, especially in light of the extant recognitions.

That’s a pretty strong endorsement of Bishoy.

I admit I am an optimist on the matter. I’m inclined to attribute HH’s silence more to politico-ecclesiastical caution, rather than personal and theological belief.

Unless I read an explicit anti-Catholic statement from HH, then I won’t believe he is anti-Catholic.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[antgaria]

Unless I read an explicit anti-Catholic statement from HH, then I won’t believe he is anti-Catholic.

I too share the same hopes.

I believe HE Bishoy to be a holy man, but he is only human.

Dear Mardukm, I share your views. The writings of HE Bishoy seem to me to indicate the truth of that statement. In my complaints about his position, I tried to be critical of his stance without being attacking the bishop himself.

Peace,

 

[Ghosty]

JMJ_Coder:

And how goes our dialogue with other Oriental Churches – Assyrians, Armenians, Syriacs, etc.?

I’ve received Holy Communion from a Syriac Orthodox priest at a Catholic Divine Liturgy (please, no questions about licity and such on this thread). I spoke with him after the Liturgy and needless to say he, at least, is very optimistic about eventual Reunion.

Obviously it is a case-by-case kind of thing, but generally speaking I’ve found relations to be very warm indeed, which my experience with the priest being the extreme end of the “positive” scale.

Peace and God bless!

 

[countertenor]

I too have received communion from a Syriac Orthodox priest, though it was at his church. Interestingly enough he later told me that a good portion of his parishioners were Catholic and there simply was no Syriac Catholic Church in the area, so some of them came to his church and some of the went to the Maronite Church. My son’s godfather is a Syriac Orthodox deacon and my wife and I are the godparents of his daughter, we’re both Latin Catholic as is all of his father’s side of the family (his father came into the Syriac O Church from the Latin Church and is now a Syriac priest after marrying a woman from India, not the same priest I’ve received communion from by the way) and is his wife’s family.

But my son’s godfather and all his siblings, while they are Syriac O. Went to Catholic school all they’re lives and have generally received the sacraments in the Latin Church quite often. He even sings for Latin Church masses both in the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form.

We talk a lot about Syriac theology and he and many the other SO I talk mention that they feel they are missing Peter, by being separate from Rome, and they truly desire to be in communion with Rome again. I do think there are some reservations just over what that would mean for jurisdiction. I think it’s mostly that they feel they should be with Rome and that Rome does have it’s prerogatives, but they’re is a worry that those prerogatives could be abused. I think they also worry about losing their distinct theology, however this seems to be lessening more and more as they come in contact with more Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopian, and other Oriental Catholics.

 

[Addai]

I have experience being on both sides of the issue. It’s not just that. One huge sore spot was the ACOE having Nestorius counted as an official major saint. Since he was the arch enemy of Alexandria naturally that would sour the Coptic view of such negotatiations unless the Assyrians immediately repudiated him etc. on the opening of such talks.

bump for new poster.

 

[antgaria]

Sorry… being a bit ignorant of forums… what’s it mean to get a “bump”?

 

[Ghosty]

Sorry… being a bit ignorant of forums… what’s it mean to get a “bump”?

It’s when someone posts a reply with the intention of “bumping” the thread to the top of the list.

Peace and God bless!