The Trisagion?

[frjohnmorris]

Quote:
Although we would agree that the sexual relationship between a husband and wife must be open to the creation of new life, we would not agree that every time that a married couple has sex that they have to be open to the creation of new life at that particular time.
Some do, some don’t - I’ve read Met. Hilarion’s statements (antiochian.org/node/17198) against artificial contraception, almost identical to the Catholic teachings.
Quote:

I am quite sure that Metropolitan Hilarion agrees with the statement on moral issues approved by the Holy Synod of Moscow which states that used correctly within marriage non abortive methods of birth control are not sinful. Most contemporary authorities on Orthodox ethics do not consider non-abortive methods of birth control sinful within marriage. Obviously all sex outside of marriage is sinful. Even within marriage the sexual relationship must eventually be open to new life. If a couple came to me and asked me to marry them and told me that they planned never to have children, I would have to refuse to marry them, but in 33 years in the Priesthood that has never happened.
If one studies the quotes from the Fathers that are used by some to justify the condemnation of non abortive methods of birth control, it is clear that they are really talking about abortion. It is important to remember that until recently scientists thought that the sperm contained a small person who was injected into the woman during sexual intercourse. Thus the Holy Fathers would have considered all forms of birth control a form of abortion. Orthodox agree with Rome on abortion, with the one exception that we would not condemn a woman who had an abortion to save her life. I may be wrong, but I think that Rome would not allow an abortion to save the life of the mother. We now know more about science and the actual physiology of conception. Therefore we now know that all methods of birth control are not abortive.
I honestly do not understand the logic of the statement concerning non abortive methods of conception control “it’s physically in the way, also a barrier in a spiritual way.” I do not understand what difference it makes if a couple tries to time their sexual activity to a woman’s cycle so that they will have sex at a time that she cannot conceive a child and using non-abortive methods of birth control. In both cases the couple is having sex in a way to avoid conception.

Archpriest John Morris

 

[dzheremi]

I agree with you the misunderstanding was due to the fact that in Eastern Orthodox theology the Trisagion is an hymn to the Holy Trinity while in the Oriental Orthodox Churches the Trisagion is an hymn to Christ.
One must sort out the real issues from the petty ones. By 692, the conflict had reached the point of pettiness on both sides. 1,300 years later what seemed like major issues do not seem so important. Unfortunately, there are still extremists on both sides who resist anything that might look like a compromise on the Christological dogma of the Church. To be truthful after Chalcedon, both sides went to excesses. Had the Copts shown the flexibility that St. Cyril showed in his important accommodation with John of Antioch, the schism would not have happened. However had the Byzantine Emperors also showed some flexibility and not resorted to force to try to make the Copts accept Chalcedon without reservation and shown proper respect for the autocephalous status of the Coptic Church the schism would not have happened. However, on behalf of the Chalcedonians, the 5th Ecumenical Council of 553 was an effort to assure the non-Chalcedonians that we the Chalcedonians do not interpret Chalcedon in a way that conflicts with the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. As I mentioned earlier without the refinements of the 5th Council, it is possible to affirm Chalcedon in Nestorian manner as Calvin did.

Archpriest John W. Morris

I agree completely with everything that you have written here, Father. For whatever it is worth, I have never met a Copt or other OO who has anything but good things to say about the fifth council. For the most part, councils subsequent to Chalcedon do not seem to present problems for us. Some of the issues settled by them are not things that ever affected our communion (e.g., iconoclasm), so they’re at best unnecessary from our point of view, but not against the faith as we and our fathers saw Chalcedon (and, more specifically, the Tome itself). This makes the insistence on the part of modern EO apologists that we accept them without reservation seem odd. To continue with the icnooclasm example, we never had reason to not venerate icons, so what does it mean to accept a council that affirms what we already believe? Is it on principle (a principle that we already affirm without said council), or is it to make us accept all councils that the EO do purely for the sake of uniformity? We are not so big on uniformity even within our own communion (in the essentials of faith, absolutely, but one need only look at how different our daughter churches in Ethiopia and Eritrea turned out in comparison to the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria to see that we embrace many different traditions and expressions of the one faith), so to have EO tell us that we must accept things that are unnecessary at best because “Orthodoxy accepts seven councils” or whatever similar reasoning (which I personally have observed several times in the context of EO wanting to know why I’m OO and not EO)…please excuse me, but it makes reunion seem less than palatable to me. Our churches seem to get along better these days than in the past, though, and that’s good to see. Who knows; with God anything is possible.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I agree completely with everything that you have written here, Father. For whatever it is worth, I have never met a Copt or other OO who has anything but good things to say about the fifth council. For the most part, councils subsequent to Chalcedon do not seem to present problems for us. Some of the issues settled by them are not things that ever affected our communion (e.g., iconoclasm), so they’re at best unnecessary from our point of view, but not against the faith as we and our fathers saw Chalcedon (and, more specifically, the Tome itself). This makes the insistence on the part of modern EO apologists that we accept them without reservation seem odd. To continue with the icnooclasm example, we never had reason to not venerate icons, so what does it mean to accept a council that affirms what we already believe? Is it on principle (a principle that we already affirm without said council), or is it to make us accept all councils that the EO do purely for the sake of uniformity? We are not so big on uniformity even within our own communion (in the essentials of faith, absolutely, but one need only look at how different our daughter churches in Ethiopia and Eritrea turned out in comparison to the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria to see that we embrace many different traditions and expressions of the one faith), so to have EO tell us that we must accept things that are unnecessary at best because “Orthodoxy accepts seven councils” or whatever similar reasoning (which I personally have observed several times in the context of EO wanting to know why I’m OO and not EO)…please excuse me, but it makes reunion seem less than palatable to me. Our churches seem to get along better these days than in the past, though, and that’s good to see. Who knows; with God anything is possible.

I think that the last three Ecumenical Councils have to be accepted precisely because they defined doctrines that we consider essential. If you agree with their decisions, why is this even an issue? If you reject Nestorianism and agree that Chalcedon must be interpreted in conformity with the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria, why would you not accept the 5th Council and by implications Chalcedon, again interpreted according to the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria? If you agree that monothelitism is an heresy, why would you not accept the decision of the 6th Council? If you agree that iconoclasm is an heresy, again why would you not accept the decisions of the 7th Council? I do not understand the rational behind your argument. If you agree with the dogmatic decisions of the last 3 Councils why not accept them for the sake of unity? This could be done easily by a simple joint declaration that we agree on the dogmas proclaimed by these councils.
If we have doctrinal agreement, I do no think that anyone in authority in the Eastern Orthodox Church would object to restoring Communion, with the Oriental Orthodox Churches having autocephalous, independent self-governing status, or expect the Oriental Orthodox Churches to give up their ancient and venerable liturgical traditions. If we share a common Faith, nothing would change except that we would be in Communion with each other and the schism would be healed. Much progress towards restoration of Communion has already been made. We seem to have resolved the Christological issues that led to the division. They have already worked out a frame work for the restoration of Communion between the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch that would preserve the independence and distinctive characteristics of both Churches. I also believe that they have already made similar agreements between the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[dzheremi]

I think that the last three Ecumenical Councils have to be accepted precisely because they defined doctrines that we consider essential. If you agree with their decisions, why is this even an issue? …] If you agree with the dogmatic decisions of the last 3 Councils why not accept them for the sake of unity? This could be done easily by a simple joint declaration that we agree on the dogmas proclaimed by these councils.

And, with the necessary review of the proclamations of the councils, I could very much envision such joint declarations being adopted between our churches. My point was more that this seems that it would not be sufficient for some on the EO side because, as far as I can tell, there is a mindset among some that these must be accepted not only or even primarily in terms of their substance, but actually in the language that has developed precisely in an EO environment, without us, to address particularly EO concerns that we have never shared.

A similar and perhaps better example can be made of the hesychastic controversy surrounding the EO versus Barlaam of Calabria in the 14th century. As has been explained to me by EO, Barlaam denied that the hesychastic practices of Athonite monks allowed them to see the uncreated light, stating instead that what they were seeing was a created light or some type of effect. From an OO perspective, I’m sure this is an important point (or at least was important enough at the time that language surrounding this issue was codified so that EOs can talk about “the uncreated light” and hesychasm and know what they are referring to), but it’s not anything that we’ve ever developed. It doesn’t reflect challenges of our history, so even down to the current day if you were to ask the average OO, unschooled in Byzantine Christian history and terminology, about these concepts, chances are they wouldn’t talk about any type of “light” in this fashion, or about hesychasm. We do not reject or deride such things, but they’re not a part of our vocabulary or understanding of what the faith consists of. Perhaps the most succinct way of putting it I’ve heard from an OO is that although our monks do not affirm such things (primarily because, again, they’re not a part of our tradition in the first place), if you go to the Coptic monasteries in the Egyptian desert, you will certainly see monks living in a manner consistent with those same practices, even if/though they’ve never heard of “hesychasm”, don’t know the language and thought behind it, and likely could not explain it if asked.

So when you ask “Why not affirm this or that”, in some cases I can agree (in that there is certainly no harm in reaffirming our traditional pro-icon stance in a joint statement, if this is what the EO need to show that we affirm what they affirm), but in others I cannot, since many of the things EO would have us give up or modify are not for us to change. Again, the issue is whether or not Byzantine-style uniformity will be forced upon us, or if EO will learn to live with the kind of diversity that is already present in our OO communion, and was once in fact present in your own.

If we have doctrinal agreement, I do no think that anyone in authority in the Eastern Orthodox Church would object to restoring Communion, with the Oriental Orthodox Churches having autocephalous, independent self-governing status, or expect the Oriental Orthodox Churches to give up their ancient and venerable liturgical traditions.

(continued below)

 

[dzheremi]

I would like to believe this, Father, but I have been alive for too long. Persistent EO objections to our “monophysite” use of the Trisagion (which is actually rooted in a completely different narrative tradition regarding how we received the Triasgion into the Church), the manner in which we Cross ourselves (which, again, is actually rooted in a completely different understanding of what the motions themselves mean), the use of cymbals and triangle in the Coptic liturgy (this is one that I am sympathetic to, but still see as a result of Byzantine misunderstanding of their use/unacceptable insistence that we follow the Byzantine way because that is supposedly self-evidently “the Orthodox way”), our iconography, etc. lead me to believe that our traditions would not be left alone or respected, or at least that we would face resumed significant pressure to be as you are, because there are some in your communion whose opinions carry much weight who cannot imagine any other way of being Orthodox. This is unacceptable, and I am happy to report that many more EO who I have known are with us in seeing it as unacceptable, but the fact that these issues and others like them reoccur on a relatively consistent basis shows that it is not as simple as signing an agreement that we accept the doctrinal stances of the later post-Chalcedonian councils. Some Byzantines will not accept anything that they themselves do not practice, and are quite openly hostile to the suggestion that their standards are not the be all and end all of Orthodox Christianity. And our patrimony, as it is the expression of our distinctly non-Byzantine and non-Chalcedonian theology and all that this entails, is everything to us, so we guard it very jealously. Believe me, if I wanted to be a Byzantine, I could’ve done so quite easily in comparison to what was involved in converting to the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox communion, or for that matter staying in it. We will either be allowed to follow in the footsteps of our fathers unimpeded by anyone, or we will remain separated. The examples that I have given above can and should rightfully be counted as externals (and it is not as though there is no difference in tradition in that sense among the EO, anyway; Georgian Christianity is after all very different from Romanian and so forth), but hopefully the underlying and very real difference in theological expressions that led them to develop as they have are not lost. Much more substantive examples (e.g., The Syrian Fraction; the writings and teachings of various non-Chalcedonians who are honored in our communion and condemned in yours; etc.) could be marshalled to support this point, and ultimately the EO would need to accept these as equally Orthodox as their own expressions if we are to have a snowball’s chance in Scetis of reuniting, just as OO holdouts would need to accept EO expressions as equally Orthodox (from what I have seen, this is basically a non-issue for the OO in the modern day, with the exception of questions surrounding Chalcedon itself; by way of example, my own parish is full of copies of the Orthodox Study Bible, freely available to any who want to to read what our priests openly call “an Orthodox translation” of the Bible, as opposed to the Arabic translations which were done by Protestants).

I also believe that they have already made similar agreements between the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria.

I am aware of the agreement affecting sacraments given in both churches to married EO-OO couples and their children within the patriarchal territory of Alexandria (not anywhere outside of it). Have there been subsequent agreements signed since the early 2000s?

 

[twf]

Quote:
Although we would agree that the sexual relationship between a husband and wife must be open to the creation of new life, we would not agree that every time that a married couple has sex that they have to be open to the creation of new life at that particular time.
Some do, some don’t - I’ve read Met. Hilarion’s statements (antiochian.org/node/17198) against artificial contraception, almost identical to the Catholic teachings.
Quote:

I am quite sure that Metropolitan Hilarion agrees with the statement on moral issues approved by the Holy Synod of Moscow which states that used correctly within marriage non abortive methods of birth control are not sinful. Most contemporary authorities on Orthodox ethics do not consider non-abortive methods of birth control sinful within marriage. Obviously all sex outside of marriage is sinful. Even within marriage the sexual relationship must eventually be open to new life. If a couple came to me and asked me to marry them and told me that they planned never to have children, I would have to refuse to marry them, but in 33 years in the Priesthood that has never happened.
If one studies the quotes from the Fathers that are used by some to justify the condemnation of non abortive methods of birth control, it is clear that they are really talking about abortion. It is important to remember that until recently scientists thought that the sperm contained a small person who was injected into the woman during sexual intercourse. Thus the Holy Fathers would have considered all forms of birth control a form of abortion. Orthodox agree with Rome on abortion, with the one exception that we would not condemn a woman who had an abortion to save her life. I may be wrong, but I think that Rome would not allow an abortion to save the life of the mother. We now know more about science and the actual physiology of conception. Therefore we now know that all methods of birth control are not abortive.
I honestly do not understand the logic of the statement concerning non abortive methods of conception control “it’s physically in the way, also a barrier in a spiritual way.” I do not understand what difference it makes if a couple tries to time their sexual activity to a woman’s cycle so that they will have sex at a time that she cannot conceive a child and using non-abortive methods of birth control. In both cases the couple is having sex in a way to avoid conception.

Archpriest John Morris

Reverend Father,

I will not get into the issue of contraception here - except to say that Natural Family Planning (abstaining from sex completely during feritle periods) preseves the integrity of the sexual act itself, when the couple actually engages in it, while artificial birth control allows the couple to enjoy the pleasures of sex removed from its proper purpose. A couple practicing NFP is open to life, but abstains from sex completely, which St. Paul allows for a “period of prayer”, for grave reasons…a couple practicing artificial birth control insists on enjoying the pleasures of the sexual act while also attempting to directly impede one of its primary purposes: the conception of life. In the latter case, the couple divorces the sexual act from one of its primary purposes. In the case of Natural Family Planning, the couple abstains from the sexual act completely and thus the integrity of the act is not impeded. Catholicism, like Orthodoxy, is an incarnational faith - and thus in the sacrament of marriage the physical act of sexual intercourse has spiritual ramifications; the integrity of the physical act of sex, which is sacred within the confines of holy matrimony, must be preserved. This is the Catholic teaching.

In regards to abortion, you are mistaken. The Catholic Church allows an abortion as an indirect and undesired secondary result. If a particular surgical action is required which will save the woman’s life, with saving the mother’s life being the primary intent, happens to result, as a secondary and undesire effect, in the termination of the unborn child, it is morally acceptable. The intent matters here. Intent is extremely important in Latin theology. If the primary intent is to kill an unborn child the act is gravely sinful. If, however, the primary intent is to save a mother’s life, and it just so happens that the child, most unfortunately, must die in the process, it is morally acceptable.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I think that on the issues that mentioned that your concerns are unfounded. Chalcedonian Orthodox are open minded enough to recognize that we can believe the same thing, but use different language to describe our beliefs. We are also intelligent enough to recognize that we can share a common Faith but express that Faith through different forms of worship and different devotional practices. Thus, I do not think that any intelligent Orthodox leader would expect the Copts or any of the Oriental Orthodox to abandon their own liturgical and devotional traditions and accept Byzantinization any more than we would expect the Catholic Church to adopt the Byzantine Liturgy and abandon their own liturgical and devotional traditions as a condition for re-establishment of Communion between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches. Thus your fears in this area are unfounded.
I think that you do not really understand the nature of the controversy between Barlaam and St. Gregory Palamas. It was much more than a debate over a method prayer or the uncreated light. It was a debate over the nature of theology and specifically of grace. Fr. John Rominades represented Eastern Orthodoxy during the dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox and was an expert on these matters and believed that we share a same belief on these issues although there are differences in terminology. The main point of St.Gregory Palamas was that grace is a divine and uncreated energy of God.In other words, we strongly affirm that we have a direct experience of God, not just with God. For example, most Protestants believe that grace is an attitude towards the believer that they define as “unmerited favor,” while we believe that grace is direct and real Communion with God that is not only the forgiveness of sins or justification which is the center of most Protestant soteriology. Instead we believe that grace is a transforming and direct experience to God that deifies and makes us by grace what God is by nature. St. Athanasius summarized this idea by writing that “God became man so that man could become God.” Thus the issue is the difference between a legalistic understanding of salvation and a mystical understanding of salvation that sees salvation as more than the forgiveness of sins, but as the transformation of the believer. To summarize the conflict between Barlaam and St. Gregory was really over Eastern mysticism or Western legalism. I believe that on that issue the Oriental Orthodox are as Eastern as we are.
St. Gregory Palamas and his theology also emphasized the inability of the human mind to comprehend the mysteries of God, while Barlaam was a strong proponent of what the Orthodox Church concluded was an overly excessive trust in human reason as a means to try to understand the mysteries of God. I am quite sure that on these issues once again the Oriental Orthodox are just as Eastern as we are.
On the issue of who is an heretic and who is a saint there will have to be some give and take on both sides. For example the Copts commemorate Severus of Antioch an a saint, I believe that the Coptic Liturgy refers to “Severus our teacher,” while EO consider him an heretic. However, we sing a hymn at every Divine Liturgy, “O only begotten Son…” which is also sung in the Syriac Liturgy. The tradition is that Justinian wrote this hymn. However, historians have concluded that Severus is the actual author of the hymn. Therefore, the EO cannot hardly consider the Christology of Severus heretical if we use a hymn that he wrote as a summary of his Christology.
The case of Dioscorus is different. I cannot help but conclude as an historian that he was a divisive figure whose followers treated the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Flavian, so badly at the Council of Ephesus of 449 that he died very soon after the council. The council presided over by Dioscorus revoked the condemnation of Eutyches by a council presided over by St. Flavian and proclaimed him Orthodox. The council also refused to allow a letter sent by Pope Leo I, later called the Tome of Leo to be read. Later St. Leo called the Council of Ephesus of 449 “A council of robbers.” At Chalcedon, Dioscorus refused to appear. Chalcedon accepted the Tome of Leo and issued a declaration of Faith that combined the main ideas from the Tome of Leo and the compromise reached between St. Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch. The council condemned the Robber Council of Ephesus and Dioscorus for his role in it, but did not actually condemn Dioscorus for heresy. Since the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox agree that Eutyches was an heretic, it is logical to assume that the Oriental Orthodox would also condemn Eutyches for his actions at Ephesus.

Archpriest John Morris

 

[dzheremi]

I think that on the issues that mentioned that your concerns are unfounded. Chalcedonian Orthodox are open minded enough to recognize that we can believe the same thing, but use different language to describe our beliefs. We are also intelligent enough to recognize that we can share a common Faith but express that Faith through different forms of worship and different devotional practices. Thus, I do not think that any intelligent Orthodox leader would expect the Copts or any of the Oriental Orthodox to abandon their own liturgical and devotional traditions and accept Byzantinization any more than we would expect the Catholic Church to adopt the Byzantine Liturgy and abandon their own liturgical and devotional traditions as a condition for re-establishment of Communion between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches. Thus your fears in this area are unfounded.

We shall wait and see, God willing. I do not think it is a matter of intelligence (or lack thereof) among either the EO or OO.

I think that you do not really understand the nature of the controversy between Barlaam and St. Gregory Palamas. It was much more than a debate over a method prayer or the uncreated light. It was a debate over the nature of theology and specifically of grace.

Forgive me, Father. I paraphrased Fr. Andrew Damick’s summation of the controversy as presented in his “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy” lectures on Ancient Faith Radio. You may find it there if interested, though I accept your correction on this account either way and defer to your superior knowledge (it is a minor point; an example of nomenclature and ideas your communion has developed that we have not, in response to challenges faced in Byzantine Christianity that were not a part of our experience).

On the issue of who is an heretic and who is a saint there will have to be some give and take on both sides. For example the Copts commemorate Severus of Antioch an a saint, I believe that the Coptic Liturgy refers to “Severus our teacher,”.

A minor correction: It is St. Dioscorus who is referred to in the commemoration of the Patriarchs as “our teacher” (in Coptic, pensakh), not St. Severus.

However, we sing a hymn at every Divine Liturgy, “O only begotten Son…” which is also sung in the Syriac Liturgy. The tradition is that Justinian wrote this hymn. However, historians have concluded that Severus is the actual author of the hymn.

It is the tradition of the Coptic Orthodox Church that St. Severus is the author of this hymn. It is good to see historians have caught up to us. We sing this at Pascha services. It is one of the hymns of the church that is preserved to this day entirely in Greek.

Therefore, the EO cannot hardly consider the Christology of Severus heretical if we use a hymn that he wrote as a summary of his Christology.

This is good to know.

The case of Dioscorus is different. I cannot help but conclude as an historian that he was a divisive figure whose followers treated the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Flavian, so badly at the Council of Ephesus of 449 that he died very soon after the council. The council presided over by Dioscorus revoked the condemnation of Eutyches by a council presided over by St. Flavian and proclaimed him Orthodox. The council also refused to allow a letter sent by Pope Leo I, later called the Tome of Leo to be read. Later St. Leo called the Council of Ephesus of 449 “A council of robbers.” At Chalcedon, Dioscorus refused to appear.

For the good of my soul, and out of respect for your person and clerical role, I will not respond to such accusations, as they would likely only lead to a protracted argument that would not advance understanding or brotherliness among us. Suffice it to say, we in the Coptic Orthodox Church very much disagree with this characterization of our teacher St. Dioscorus.

Chalcedon accepted the Tome of Leo and issued a declaration of Faith that combined the main ideas from the Tome of Leo and the compromise reached between St. Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch. The council condemned the Robber Council of Ephesus and Dioscorus for his role in it, but did not actually condemn Dioscorus for heresy. Since the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox agree that Eutyches was an heretic, it is logical to assume that the Oriental Orthodox would also condemn Eutyches for his actions at Ephesus.

Did you mean “would also condemn Dioscorus for his actions at Ephesus”? Because this is not the case, but it has also not prevented us from condemning the heretic Eutyches, as we have for a very, very long time. Please see, for instance, H.E. Abba Seraphim of Glastonbury’s address before the inter-Orthodox conference at Sigtuna, Sweden in June 2005, available here, which properly contextualizes our continued rejection and anathematization of all who share in the error of Eutyches as a continuation of the faith of our fathers. Please pay close attention to the quote provided therein from HH St. Severus of Antioch, which explains very clearly both the reason for the pardoning of Eutyches at Ephesus as well as his subsequent condemnation by those who had previously pardoned him. We in the OO communion have no problem with any of this.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I will be honest with you. I have glanced at Fr. Andrew Damick’s book but have not read it. I have bad feelings about his book, because I submitted a much more scholarly and detailed manuscript that I had been led to believe Conciliar Press would publish and they rejected it. Then a few years later, they published a Fr. Andrew’s much less detailed and scholarly book on the same subject. I had a contract with Reina Press to publish my book, but Schaefer lost interest and refused to honor the contract. Actually, since he seems to have gone off of the deep end, I am glad that my work is not associated with him. I did have the book published under the title The Historic Church: An Orthodox View of Church History. It is available on Amazon. I purposely took a very low royalty to keep the book affordable. Thus a 600 page book is available for less than $25 dollars. Interesting enough, I was interviewed last week by the Orthodox Christian Network on the difference between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy. I stated that in my personal opinion the division is not really theological, but over semantics and historical interpretations.
First of all I not trying to be arrogant, but I am a professional historian, with a PhD in history and years of teaching history on the college level, including courses on Church history, although my specialization in Church history is the Reformation era. Later after I converted to Orthodoxy, I also earned an MTS degree from Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. Thus my approach to this subject is historical.
My honest view is that the Oriental Orthodox have a valid argument concerning Chalcedon, because it is possible to interpret Chalcedon in a Nestorian manner. My example would be John Calvin who professes acceptance of Chalcedon in his Institutes and then presents a Nestorian Christology. That is why the 5th Council is so important. It mandates that Chalcedon must be interpreted in conformity with St. Cyril of Alexandria. I noticed that Metropolitan Seraphim does not mention that the 5th Council declared Theodore of Mopsuestia an heretic unless I missed something when I read his statement.
Thus the real issue is not Chalcedon, but how one interprets Chalcedon. The Council of Chalcedon did not condemn Dioscorus as an heretic, but for presiding over the Council that exonerated Eutyches. Since the Oriental Orthodox also consider Eutyches an heretic, I would think that they would understand our problems with Dioscorus. However, I also think that Eutyches was not exactly honest with the members of the Council of 553 when he tried to justify himself. Because the 5th Council, Constantinople II in 553 requires that Chalcedon be interpreted according to the teachings of St. Cyril, I would think that the Oriental Orthodox would accept it without hesitation and that its decrees form a foundation for a common Christology since we both accept the Christolology of St. Cyril.
My personal view is that our disagreement is not theological, but historical. We both see the history of the division from a different point of view. I also think that Byzantine imperialism also played a role. Remember we Antiochian Orthodox had our own problems with Greek domination of our Patriarchate. Jerusalem still has this problem.
I agree that extremists on both sides are preventing reunion. We should not allow disagreements on the interpretation of history to divide us since it seems to me that we share the same Orthodox Faith. I agree that there are some Eastern Orthodox Fundamentalists who are causing us a lot of problems with this and other issues. I wrote a book on the subject years ago at the request of my Metropolitan, Orthodox Fundamentalism: A Critical View. But, I also believe that the Oriental Orthodox have the same problem.
Thus I favor continued dialogue and cooperation with the goal of restoring Communion between us. I believe with good will on both sides that we can overcome our differences and restore Communion.
I do know that wherever I have been we have good relations with the local Oriental Orthodox. We form a common caucus in every ecumenical organization. Every year the Copts have a banquet in Houston with the Coptic Bishop from Dallas and invite the Eastern Orthodox. We are the only non-Oriental Orthodox that they invite. When I was in Shreveport, the Copts used my Church for a Divine Liturgy on Saturday mornings.
I know that we Antiochian Orthodox have very close relations with the Syriac Orthodox Church here and in the Middle East.
In a lot of places where there is no Oriental Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox join the local Eastern Orthodox Church. I once presided over the wedding for the grandson of Emperor Haile Selassie. I offered to let them invite an Ethiopian Orthodox Priest or Bishop to do the wedding, but they told me that I was their priest and that they wanted me to marry them. The entire Ethiopian royal family was present.
Until they had a riot and killed a guard and locked down the prison, I ministered to a mixed group of Russian Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox at a nearby federal prison. Since then a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has taken over that ministry, because I was unable to return when the lock down ended because I had to have a total knee replacement. I found about the Russian Orthodox priest and asked him if he would take it over. Since he had law enforcement experience, he was glad to relieve me of that responsibility.
Thus I am optimistic about the possibility or re-establishing Communion.
In conclusion I feel that we share a common Faith, because I once attended a meeting sponsored by the National Council of Churches that sponsored a tour of the US by an Indian Orthodox Priest under the Syriac Patriarchate of Antioch. I found during the discussions with the Protestants that we both said exactly the same thing on theological issues.

Archpriest John Morris

 

[jimmy]

Also MorEphrem according to Archadale King in his book The Rites of Eastern Christendom Vol. 1 p.274

That is still the case. There are times throughout the year when it has a specifically christological meaning. Look at the trisagion on Christmas Day Maronite liturgy or on Easter and at a couple other times. Here is the Christmas trisagion:

Cel: Qadeeshat aloho; Qadeeshat hyeltono; Qadeeshat lomoyouto.

Cong: Msheeho dehteeled min bat Daweed, itraham alein.

The response translates as ‘O Christ, born from the daughter of David, have mercy on us.’

 

[malphono]

That is still the case. There are times throughout the year when it has a specifically christological meaning. Look at the trisagion on Christmas Day Maronite liturgy or on Easter and at a couple other times. Here is the Christmas trisagion:

Cel: Qadeeshat aloho; Qadeeshat hyeltono; Qadeeshat lomoyouto.

Cong: Msheeho dehteeled min bat Daweed, itraham alein.

The response translates as ‘O Christ, born from the daughter of David, have mercy on us.’

Yeah, that’s an innovation that’s been added in the 20-some years, and I actually find it kind of amusing. I say that because there were things in the thakso that were expunged by the neo-latinizers under the guise that they were of “Jacobite” origin. Yet in the Trisagion, who but those very same neo-latinizers embrace an idea that has been criticized by their masters for ages as being just that. :banghead: If it weren’t so depressing, it would be riotously funny.

 

[frjohnmorris]

The difference between us and the Oriental Orthodox is that Eastern Orthodox consider the Trisagion addressed to the entire Holy Trinity. I personally do not think that the Eastern Orthodox condemnation of the phrase “who was crucified for us” was due to a misunderstanding on our part of the intention of the Oriental Orthodox. If the Trisagion is addressed to Christ, the non-Chalcedonian version is obviously Orthodox.

 

[Zekariya]

Yeah, that’s an innovation that’s been added in the 20-some years, and I actually find it kind of amusing. I say that because there were things in the thakso that were expunged by the neo-latinizers under the guise that they were of “Jacobite” origin. Yet in the Trisagion, who but those very same neo-latinizers embrace an idea that has been criticized by their masters for ages as being just that. :banghead: If it weren’t so depressing, it would be riotously funny.

It is my impression that the West uses the Trisagion in a Christological sense. They sing it on Good Friday while venerating the Cross.

 

[malphono]

It is my impression that the West uses the Trisagion in a Christological sense. They sing it on Good Friday while venerating the Cross.

I know it’s used but I don’t know the sense. Maybe patrick457 can shed some light on that.

FWIW and IIRC (Rony, please correct me if I’m mistaken), the Chaldeans & ACoE use it in the Trinitarian sense.

 

[dzheremi]

The Coptic Orthodox understanding of the Trisagion as a distinctly Christological hymn stems from our tradition regarding its origin with Joseph and Nicodemus, who prayed it extemporaneously in praise of the Savior upon removing His body from the cross. There is a verse describing this in the ancient burial hymn “Golgotha”, which is sung on Good Friday by the deacons who surround the altar during the reenactment of the Burial. As the text describes:

The righteous Joseph and Nicodemus came took away the Body of Christ, wrapped it in linen cloths with spices, and put it in a sepulcher and praised Him saying, “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, who was crucified for us, have mercy on us.”

That the Byzantines have their own tradition which leads to a different interpretation is fine, in so far as it is certainly Orthodox to say as they do “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy upon us”. If I recall correctly, the Syriac Orthodox have a somewhat different tradition from the Coptic regarding the Trisagion, though I cannot recall its details at the moment.

 

[frjohnmorris]

The Coptic Orthodox understanding of the Trisagion as a distinctly Christological hymn stems from our tradition regarding its origin with Joseph and Nicodemus, who prayed it extemporaneously in praise of the Savior upon removing His body from the cross. There is a verse describing this in the ancient burial hymn “Golgotha”, which is sung on Good Friday by the deacons who surround the altar during the reenactment of the Burial. As the text describes:

The righteous Joseph and Nicodemus came took away the Body of Christ, wrapped it in linen cloths with spices, and put it in a sepulcher and praised Him saying, “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, who was crucified for us, have mercy on us.”

That the Byzantines have their own tradition which leads to a different interpretation is fine, in so far as it is certainly Orthodox to say as they do “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy upon us”. If I recall correctly, the Syriac Orthodox have a somewhat different tradition from the Coptic regarding the Trisagion, though I cannot recall its details at the moment.

In the Eastern Orthodox understanding the Trisagion is addressed to the entire Holy Trinity. I personally do not think that this issue is church dividing as long as it is explained that the Oriental Orthodox address the Trisagion to Christ, not the entire Holy Trinity.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[jimmy]

Yeah, that’s an innovation that’s been added in the 20-some years, and I actually find it kind of amusing. I say that because there were things in the thakso that were expunged by the neo-latinizers under the guise that they were of “Jacobite” origin. Yet in the Trisagion, who but those very same neo-latinizers embrace an idea that has been criticized by their masters for ages as being just that. :banghead: If it weren’t so depressing, it would be riotously funny.

Hahaha, I didn’t realize that. I was actually wondering why it was still like that. I figured it would have been changed long ago, to a more pro western/non Jacobite form. And now it turns out it is a new thing.

 

[dzheremi]

I personally do not think that this issue is church dividing as long as it is explained that the Oriental Orthodox address the Trisagion to Christ, not the entire Holy Trinity.

There is no other explanation to be had, Father. The text itself precludes Trinitarian interpretation in so far as concerns what the Byzantines refer to as the addition of Peter the Fuller. We do not believe and have never believed that the Holy Trinity consists of Christ and Christ and Christ.

 

[frjohnmorris]

There is no other explanation to be had, Father. The text itself precludes Trinitarian interpretation in so far as concerns what the Byzantines refer to as the addition of Peter the Fuller. We do not believe and have never believed that the Holy Trinity consists of Christ and Christ and Christ.

The Byzantine interpretation of the Trisagion is that the hymn is addressed to the three persons of the Holy Trinity. This makes sense to me especially since the Trisagion originated in the Byzantine tradition. It is understood as a hymn sung by the angelic hosts to God who is Trinity. However, I personally, here I cannot speak for my Church, have no problem with the Oriental Orthodox treating the Trisagion as an hymn to Christ.

Archpriest John W Morris

 

[dzheremi]

The Byzantine interpretation of the Trisagion is that the hymn is addressed to the three persons of the Holy Trinity. This makes sense to me especially since the Trisagion originated in the Byzantine tradition.

I see.

I think I will be unsubscribing from this thread now.