The Trisagion?

[malphono]

Actually in Arabic, we are called Roman Orthodox because our people were placed in the Roman nation by the Turks.

Actually, the expression “roum” (whether “orthodoxe” or “catholique”) in Arabic really has nothing directly to do with the Ottomans or the Arabs. It does, however, have to do with the fact that Constantinople was known as “New Rome.”

 

[Zekariya]

Many of the Byzantine traditions originated in Antioch. We do not use Syriac because our people do not speak Syriac. In the Middle East, we use Arabic. In the US we use English.We are not a carbon copy of Greek practice, because have our own traditions that differ from Greek usage. We are part of the multi-national Eastern Orthodox Church because our people did not follow the non-Chalcedonians into schism from the rest of the Church.
Actually in Arabic, we are called Roman Orthodox because our people were placed in the Roman nation by the Turks.

Archpriest John W. Morris

By “Syriac” I was refering to the West Syrian Rite traditions of Antioch that you (or we, since I am Melkite) do not make use of for the most part anymore. This is true. The practice of Constantinople became predominate in our Churches. Some things have survived but most were “replaced or absorbed into the predominate Byzantine traditions”. The West Syrian Rite has been dropped and the Byzantine Rite (which has similarities) is used.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Actually, the expression “roum” (whether “orthodoxe” or “catholique”) in Arabic really has nothing directly to do with the Ottomans or the Arabs. It does, however, have to do with the fact that Constantinople was known as “New Rome.”

Under the Turks non-Muslims were governed through their religious leaders. All Orthodox under them were put into the Rhum Millet. What difference does it make when the term originated? It is true that the Eastern Orthodox under Antioch are united with the Church of the New Rome because we did not go into schism after Chalcedon. At one time we were called Melkites from the Arabic and Syriac word for King because we belonged to the same Church as the Emperor of the New Rome. However, the Eastern Catholics who went into union with Rome in 1724 took that name for themselves. Now the title Melkite means an Arabic Eastern Catholic.
We now have very close relations with the Syriac Orthodox and are close to reestablishing Communion with them. When it takes place, I think that it will be done in away in which we will continue to be Antiochians who use the Byzantine Rite and the Syriac Orthodox will continue to use their own Rite. There will also probably be a Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and a Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, because I do not think that either Church will absorb the other. I have read that our new Patriarch His Beatitude John X is dedicated to reestablishment of Communion with the Syriac Orthodox.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[malphono]

Under the Turks non-Muslims were governed through their religious leaders. All Orthodox under them were put into the Rhum Millet.

Yes, my strong Levantine background plus my age, (among other things which are not for this forum) make me quite well aware of that.

What difference does it make?

The only difference it makes is in the usage. One is correct, the other is not.

It is true that the Eastern Orthodox under Antioch are united with the rest of Orthodoxy, because they did not follow the non-Chalcedonias into schism.

No, I don’t think that’s quite it, but I’m not in the mood to argue this further.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Now the title Melkite means an Arabic Eastern Catholic.
We now have very close relations with the Syriac Orthodox and are close to reestablishing Communion with them. When it takes place, I think that it will be done in away in which we will continue to be Antiochians who use the Byzantine Rite and the Syriac Orthodox will continue to use their own Rite. There will also probably be a Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and a Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, because I do not think that either Church will absorb the other. I have read that our new Patriarch His Beatitude John X is dedicated to reestablishment of Communion with the Syriac Orthodox.

Archpriest John W. Morris

The Syriac Orthodox are a favorable bunch, friends with all sides and enemies of no one. They are THISCLOSE to union with everyone, yet THIS FAR from everyone as well.

It is true that the Eastern Orthodox under Antioch are united with the rest of Orthodoxy, because they did not follow the non-Chalcedonias into schism.

There’s that Western triumphalism - it’s died down in the Latin Church over the last 100 years, I wonder how long it will take the Greeks.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Yes, my strong Levantine background plus my age, (among other things which are not for this forum) make me quite well aware of that.

The only difference it makes is in the usage. One is correct, the other is not.

No, I don’t think that’s quite it, but I’m not in the mood to argue this further.

Which usage do you consider correct?
I have no problem being called Greek Orthodox because I share the same Faith as the Greek Orthodox. I graduated from the Greek Orthodox seminary in Boston. Greek Orthodox is a generic term for Eastern Orthodox in the Middle East. It does not mean ethnically Greek or under Constantinople. Whatever you call it our Patriarchate is an autocphalous Church and is self-governing. I did not use the term Greek Orthodox to describe our Patriarchate because it causes confusion in America because we are not under the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. We are a self-ruling Archdiocese under the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.

Archpriest John Morris

 

[malphono]

Which usage do you consider correct?

I simply meant the usage of the word “roum” in Arabic …

 

[frjohnmorris]

The Syriac Orthodox are a favorable bunch, friends with all sides and enemies of no one. They are THISCLOSE to union with everyone, yet THIS FAR from everyone as well.

There’s that Western triumphalism - it’s died down in the Latin Church over the last 100 years, I wonder how long it will take the Greeks.

You are taking offense when no offense was intended. It is not triumphalism. Nor is it meant to be an insult. It is simply a statement of historical fact. The Syriac or Jacobite Church did go into schism. How else can you express the fact that those who rejected Chalcedon broke Communion with those who accepted Chalcedon? There was a break in Communion. By defination, a break in Communion is a schism. Not all Antiochian Orthodox followed them but remained in Communion with the rest of the Church. We are still in Communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church. Our representatives and your representatives are working to heal the schism. It seems that we have resolved the doctrinal issues and are now working on how to restore Communion.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[malphono]

You are taking offense when no offense was intended. It is not triumphalism. Nor is it meant to be an insult. It is simply a statement of historical fact. The Syriac or Jacobite Church did go into schism. How else can you express the fact that those who rejected Chalcedon broke Communion with those who accepted Chalcedon? There was a break in Communion. By defination, a break in Communion is a schism. Not all Antiochian Orthodox followed them but remained in Communion with the rest of the Church. We are still in Communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church. Our representatives and your representatives are working to heal the schism. It seems that we have resolved the doctrinal issues and are now working on how to restore Communion.

It’s quite clear that Imperial Constantinople, aka the Byzantine Empire, had its own, mainly political, agenda, and the imposition of a Greek Byzantine, i.e, Maximos II, to the throne of Antioch had certain, shall we say, repercussions. One of those repercussions is the existence of what are today called the Melkites and Antiochian Orthodox in the first place. With the imposition of Maximos II, there arose two major factions, one of which was called the “Melkite Maximites” (the very word “Melkite” derives from the Semitic word for “king”) who supported him and Constantinople.

 

[MorEphrem]

^See above for history.

All due respect, father; you’re just saying the pro-Byzantine narrative and passing it off as impartial history. I say this not as a Syriac but as impartial an observer as possible in this thread.

 

[frjohnmorris]

It’s quite clear that Imperial Constantinople, aka the Byzantine Empire, had its own, mainly political, agenda, and the imposition of a Greek Byzantine, i.e, Maximos II, to the throne of Antioch had certain, shall we say, repercussions. One of those repercussions is the existence of what are today called the Melkites and Antiochian Orthodox in the first place. With the imposition of Maximos II, there arose two major factions, one of which was called the “Melkite Maximites” (the very word “Melkite” derives from the Semitic word for “king”) who supported him and Constantinople.

It is not quite that simple. It was not a matter of Byzantine imperialism, but was a matter of doctrine. Maximos replaced Dominus II because he was doctrinally unstable. First Dominus was a Nestorian. He consecrated Irenaeus, a Nestorian, as Bishop of Tyre. He also called a council in Antioch in 448 which supported Ibas, who had condemned St. Cyril of Alexandria for heresy. The letter of Ibas to Maris was condemned for Nestorianism by the II Council of Constantinople in 553. Ibas has also been condemned for Nestorianism by the Syriac Orthodox Church. Dominus II was deposed by the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449 and then became a monophysite supporting Eutyches and condemning Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople. Because of this, he was not restored to his see by Chalcedon. He then retired to a monastery, apparently at his own request. However Patriarch Maximos gave him a pension. Thus the Emperor only enforced the decision of the Council of Chalcedon not to restore Dominus II. The whole dispute was not a matter of Byzantine imperialism, but concerned the doctrine of the Church. The Melkites of Antioch, were those who accepted the judgment of the rest of the Church by accepting Chalcedon.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

Since so much of this discussion has revolved around the issues of people like Dioscorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, I would like to have someone tell me how the Coptic and Syrian Catholics dealt with Dioscorus, Severus and others condemned for Monophysitism by both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches and how the Chaldean Catholics dealt with Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius who were also condemned by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

 

[Zekariya]

Since so much of this discussion has revolved around the issues of people like Dioscorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, I would like to have someone tell me how the Coptic and Syrian Catholics dealt with Dioscorus, Severus and others condemned for Monophysitism by both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches and how the Chaldean Catholics dealt with Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius who were also condemned by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

The Coptic Orthodox Church, Syriac Orthodox Church, Armenian Apostolic Church, etc are Orthodox and they did not condemn Dioscorus, Severus of Antioch, etc.

 

[frjohnmorris]

The Coptic Orthodox Church, Syriac Orthodox Church, Armenian Apostolic Church, etc are Orthodox and they did not condemn Dioscorus, Severus of Antioch, etc.

I find it difficult not to condemn Dioscorus. He presided over the Council of Ephesus of 449 that acquitted Eutyches of heresy. During the meetings his supporters physically attacked Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople who opposed monophysitism so brutally that he later died. Dioscorus also refused to allow the Tome of Leo to be read during the council. Pope Leo called the council “council of robbers.” Thus is is known of in church history as the Robber Council of Ephesus. The Council of Chalcedon condemned and exiled Dioscorus for his behavior during the Robber Council.

Severus of Antioch was a fierce opponent of Chalcedon. Even if his writings can be interpreted as Orthodox, his accusation that Chalcedon was Nestorian and agitation against the acceptance of the Council played a major role in creating the schism. I just glanced at a few of his writings. They are inflammatory and filled with false accusations against Chalcedon. I will admit that the problem may very well be that Severus did not understand the meaning that the Council attached to Greek words like hypostasis. However, it is obvious by reading just a few of his words that he was filled with rage against Chalcedon. At the very least, he did not make an honest effort to understand what was meant at Chalcedon before he began his campaign against the 4th Ecumenical Council. Perhaps had he been less prejudiced and taken the time to really understand Chalcedon, he might not have been such a fanatical opponent of Chalcedon.
The bottom line is that Chalcedon is a correct expression of the Orthodox Faith. It was not a surrender to Nestorianism. It was accepted by the entire Church except for those who went into schism.
Besides, the Chalcedonians did their best to assure the non-Chalcedonians that they shared their condemnation of Nestorianism as can be seen from the II Council of Constantinople in 553.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[ronyodish]

Since so much of this discussion has revolved around the issues of people like Dioscorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, I would like to have someone tell me how the Coptic and Syrian Catholics dealt with Dioscorus, Severus and others condemned for Monophysitism by both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches and how the Chaldean Catholics dealt with Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius who were also condemned by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Fr. Morris,

My Chaldean Catholic Church does not publicly and officially venerate Theodore and Nestorius as Saints, and that’s because this was required of our ancestors in order for them to enter into full communion with Rome.

In our traditional liturgical calendar, we used to have a “Memorial of the Greek Doctors” and these Greek Doctors were a reference to only three: Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorius. However, since entering into full communion with Rome, this memorial is now much more generalized, referring to all the Greek Doctors and Fathers.

In addition to the primary liturgy of Sts. Addai and Mari, we have two other liturgies that were written in honor of Theodore and Nestorius. However, instead of calling them by their traditional names: “Hallowing of Mar Theodorus” and “Hallowing of Mar Nestorius”, they have been renamed as simply the “Second Mystery” and the “Third Mystery” since our entrance into full communion with Rome, in order to expunge the memory of Theodore and Nestorius from our Church. Likewise, any references to them in the litanies and prayers have been removed.

In our primary liturgy, our ancestors used to traditionally refer to the Virgin Mary as the Mother of Christ. Since full communion with Rome, the term Christ was replaced with the term God. However, very recently, with the blessings of Rome, the liturgy was reformed in order to remove many inorganic additions (Latinizations, etc.), and replace them with traditional features of the Church of the East. In other words, the reform was a restoration. The title Mother of God was not dropped, however, the term Christ was inserted in a parenthesis next to the phrase Mother of God like this: “Let there be a remembrance of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God (or: Christ), upon the holy altar.” This gives the deacon the option to either say Mother of God or Mother of Christ.

Now, privately and unofficially, there are some Chaldean Catholics, and some Assyrian Catholics who are members of our Chaldean Church, who do venerate Theodore and Nestorius. They venerate them in the hope that one day they will be rehabilitated. Also, they venerate the good things about them. They do not venerate their mistakes, like for example, they do not agree with Nestorius that the phrase Mother of God is incorrect and should be rejected. At the same time, they do agree with Nestorius that the phrase Mother of Christ is correct and should not be rejected.

I am in favor of rehabilitating not only Theodore, and Nestorius, but also Severus and Dioscorus. I do not think that Theodore and Nestorius were Nestorians, nor do I think that Severus and Dioscorus were Monophysites. I think that despite any weakness that each of them may have exhibited, whether in their theology or in their character, they can be rehabilitated as individuals. Their weakness can be acknowledged as human weakness and simply laid aside. Many other acknowledged Saints of the Church were weak in some aspect of their theology and character.

I agree with Bishop Mar Bawai Soro, who wrote in his book The Church of the East, that “All parties to this controversy are challenged today to realize that, like Cyril and Severus, for 1500 years they have affirmed the impassibility of the divine nature in Christ and recognized the full, integral reality of his manhood. At the same time Theodore and Nestorius have always insisted on the oneness of the person of Christ and at no time have separated his divine nature from the complete human nature, which the Word took for his own. The legitimate fears expressed by each party to this dispute, as each side saw the weakness in the other’s terminology, have simply never been realized. That is why it is time for all Christendom to move on towards a new reality – one that is a truer realization of the Kingdom of God” (pg. 282).

So, I hope that a Great and Ecumenical Council will one day rehabilitate them, and also cause a reestablishment of full communion between all Apostolic Christians.

God bless,

Rony

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. Morris,

My Chaldean Catholic Church does not publicly and officially venerate Theodore and Nestorius as Saints, and that’s because this was required of our ancestors in order for them to enter into full communion with Rome.

In our traditional liturgical calendar, we used to have a “Memorial of the Greek Doctors” and these Greek Doctors were a reference to only three: Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorius. However, since entering into full communion with Rome, this memorial is now much more generalized, referring to all the Greek Doctors and Fathers.

In addition to the primary liturgy of Sts. Addai and Mari, we have two other liturgies that were written in honor of Theodore and Nestorius. However, instead of calling them by their traditional names: “Hallowing of Mar Theodorus” and “Hallowing of Mar Nestorius”, they have been renamed as simply the “Second Mystery” and the “Third Mystery” since our entrance into full communion with Rome, in order to expunge the memory of Theodore and Nestorius from our Church. Likewise, any references to them in the litanies and prayers have been removed.

In our primary liturgy, our ancestors used to traditionally refer to the Virgin Mary as the Mother of Christ. Since full communion with Rome, the term Christ was replaced with the term God. However, very recently, with the blessings of Rome, the liturgy was reformed in order to remove many inorganic additions (Latinizations, etc.), and replace them with traditional features of the Church of the East. In other words, the reform was a restoration. The title Mother of God was not dropped, however, the term Christ was inserted in a parenthesis next to the phrase Mother of God like this: “Let there be a remembrance of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God (or: Christ), upon the holy altar.” This gives the deacon the option to either say Mother of God or Mother of Christ.

Now, privately and unofficially, there are some Chaldean Catholics, and some Assyrian Catholics who are members of our Chaldean Church, who do venerate Theodore and Nestorius. They venerate them in the hope that one day they will be rehabilitated. Also, they venerate the good things about them. They do not venerate their mistakes, like for example, they do not agree with Nestorius that the phrase Mother of God is incorrect and should be rejected. At the same time, they do agree with Nestorius that the phrase Mother of Christ is correct and should not be rejected.

I am in favor of rehabilitating not only Theodore, and Nestorius, but also Severus and Dioscorus. I do not think that Theodore and Nestorius were Nestorians, nor do I think that Severus and Dioscorus were Monophysites. I think that despite any weakness that each of them may have exhibited, whether in their theology or in their character, they can be rehabilitated as individuals. Their weakness can be acknowledged as human weakness and simply laid aside. Many other acknowledged Saints of the Church were weak in some aspect of their theology and character.

I agree with Bishop Mar Bawai Soro, who wrote in his book The Church of the East, that “All parties to this controversy are challenged today to realize that, like Cyril and Severus, for 1500 years they have affirmed the impassibility of the divine nature in Christ and recognized the full, integral reality of his manhood. At the same time Theodore and Nestorius have always insisted on the oneness of the person of Christ and at no time have separated his divine nature from the complete human nature, which the Word took for his own. The legitimate fears expressed by each party to this dispute, as each side saw the weakness in the other’s terminology, have simply never been realized. That is why it is time for all Christendom to move on towards a new reality – one that is a truer realization of the Kingdom of God” (pg. 282).

So, I hope that a Great and Ecumenical Council will one day rehabilitate them, and also cause a reestablishment of full communion between all Apostolic Christians.

God bless,

Rony

You have made a valid point. The issues that we should be discussing is what we now believe and how we can be reconciled. As an historian, I enjoy good historical debate, but do not think think that arguing about history will solve the problem of Christian disunity. I suspect that the truth is that all sides in these ancient debates stopped listening to each other and became overly concerned with semantics instead of real theology. It is entirely possible for two Christian traditions to express the same truth without using identical terminology.
In the case of the Church of the East, I think that the real reason for the schism was not so much theology as it was the fact that the Church of the East could not afford to alienate its Persian rulers by showing too much deference to the Eastern Roman Empire.

Fr. John

 

[SyroMalankara]

In the case of the Church of the East, I think that the real reason for the schism was not so much theology as it was the fact that the Church of the East could not afford to alienate its Persian rulers by showing too much deference to the Eastern Roman Empire.

Fr. John

Nor could the Church of the Eastern Roman Empire alienate it’s Imperial rulers and show too much deference to the Persian Christians, lest they be accused of collusion with the Persian rulers.

 

[malphono]

It is not quite that simple. It was not a matter of Byzantine imperialism, but was a matter of doctrine. Maximos replaced Dominus II because he was doctrinally unstable. … Thus the Emperor only enforced the decision of the Council of Chalcedon not to restore Dominus II. The whole dispute was not a matter of Byzantine imperialism, but concerned the doctrine of the Church. The Melkites of Antioch, were those who accepted the judgment of the rest of the Church by accepting Chalcedon.

Here, again, I am quite aware of the history, yet I have to disagree about the absence of Byzantine imperialism in the whole affair. To me, at least, that point is very clear.

 

[Zekariya]

Since so much of this discussion has revolved around the issues of people like Dioscorus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, I would like to have someone tell me how the Coptic and Syrian Catholics dealt with Dioscorus, Severus and others condemned for Monophysitism by both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches and how the Chaldean Catholics dealt with Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius who were also condemned by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

I’ll be blunt since you did not realize what I meant. The Orthodox Church did not condemn them only one half of them condemned them. The Eastern Orthodox Church condemned them. The Oriental Orthodox Church did not condemn them. Stop acting like the Eastern Orthodox are are the only Orthodox.

Also, St John Damascene was just as polemical as St Severus of Antioch. St John made intentionally outrageous claims against the Miaphysites. Stop acting like it was only the non-Chalcedonian saints that acted in that way.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I’ll be blunt since you did not realize what I meant. The Orthodox Church did not condemn them only one half of them condemned them. The Eastern Orthodox Church condemned them. The Oriental Orthodox Church did not condemn them. Stop acting like the Eastern Orthodox are are the only Orthodox.

Also, St John Damascene was just as polemical as St Severus of Antioch. St John made intentionally outrageous claims against the Miaphysites. Stop acting like it was only the non-Chalcedonian saints that acted in that way.

I try to be as nonconfrontational as possible in my responses. However, I honestly believe that Dioscoros and Severus were wrong. My view comes from standard histories of the period written by recognized scholars, most of whom are not Eastern Orthodox, and from reading some of the works of Severus. Read Wiliston Walker’s A History of the Christian Church. This is a standard well accepted text used in many universities and seminaries for church history classes. So my views are quite mainstream among historians. I do not see how the non-Chalcedonians can claim to reject the teachings of Eutyches while considering Dioscoros a saint because Dioscoros was his chief supported and presided over the Council of Ephesus of 449 that revoked his condemnation. He was also at least complacent in the beating of Flavian that so injured him that it led to his death. At the same time, historians agree that Servius was a Monophysite who led the schismatic movement of the supporters of Dioscoros. I have looked at some of his writings and am inclined to agree that he was a Monophysite or at least that he was wrong to condemn Chalcedon and accuse the Ecumenical Council and its supporters of Nestorianism.
Whether or not these historical disagreements can be resolved by treating them as theologoumena is one solution to the division provided the Chalcedonian Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are able to reach full dogmatic agreement. However, I am just a priest and do not have the authority to set policy for the Eastern Orthodox Church. But that would be my solution to the division over historical interpretations. What is important is doctrine not history because I am the first to admit that history is not truth, but is subject to interpretations that are always colored by the personal biases of whoever is interpreting history. I am Eastern Orthodox. Therefore my view of history is filtered through my Eastern Orthodox point of view.
I refer to my Church as The Orthodox Church, because according to Orthodox theology and statements that have been presented in ecumenical dialogues, we have taken the position that the Church is not divided, but that the those Churches in Communion with Constantinople and the other Eastern Orthodox autocephalous Churches are the “living realization of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Until Communion is restored, I would consider the Oriental Orthodox close, but not yet fully Orthodox.

Archpriest John W. Morris