B
Bakmoon
Guest
Is there a specific description of the relationship of Jesus’ Divinity and Humanity? I want to make sure I get this right.
- Status
N
neokarny
Guest
That the one nature of the Incarnate Word is both fully God and fully Man “without confusion [mingling], without change, without division and without separation.”
Not Oriental Orthodox, but I’m pretty sure that’s an accurate (and short) way of explaining.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Yes. What our Chalcedonian friend has posted comes straight from the priest’s confession that is part of every liturgy. If you want more explanation, the Fraction prayers are all longer statements of the same thing. 
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Just a slight grammatical point, but it is rightfully rendered in English ‘one incarnate nature of the Word of God’ (μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη), not ‘one nature of the incarnate Word of God’ (μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένου). The latter formulation is open to Eutychianism, while the former is not.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Forgive me, Cavaradossi and all. You are absolutely correct. I should have been more careful (after all, I can read the Greek just fine…perhaps the 7:30 AM liturgy today on 3 hours of sleep is contributing to some less than stellar cognitive abilities today). One incarnate nature of the Word of God. This should be emphasized, because our Fathers did not have the reaction to the formulation of “FROM two natures” (meaning, forming a single nature at/with the incarnation) as they had to “IN two natures”, which is not acceptable according to our understanding of St. Cyril’s teaching.
Thank you very much for catching my careless mistake. I know it won’t be the last, but I’ll try to make it so.
Thank you very much for catching my careless mistake. I know it won’t be the last, but I’ll try to make it so.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I don’t think any English-speaker can be faulted for it. An unfortunate reality is that the phrase ‘μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη’ gets translated all to often either as ‘one nature of the incarnate Word of God’, or ambiguously as ‘one nature of the Word of God incarnate’ (a completely meaningless translation). It took me a good while to get both of those common translations out of my head.Forgive me, Cavaradossi and all. You are absolutely correct. I should have been more careful (after all, I can read the Greek just fine…perhaps the 7:30 AM liturgy today on 3 hours of sleep is contributing to some less than stellar cognitive abilities today). One incarnate nature of the Word of God. This should be emphasized, because our Fathers did not have the reaction to the formulation of “FROM two natures” (meaning, forming a single nature at/with the incarnation) as they had to “IN two natures”, which is not acceptable according to our understanding of St. Cyril’s teaching.
Thank you very much for catching my careless mistake. I know it won’t be the last, but I’ll try to make it so.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Wow - I’ve never really grasped the theological position until reading this translation. This word order most certainly does lead to more precise conclusion.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Interesting point.
D
dzheremi
Guest
In that case, I MEANT to do that. Hahaha.
B
Bakmoon
Guest
Could I get links to the Fraction prayers? I really want to make sure that I understand the Oriental Orthodox position well enough to avoid misrepresenting it in the future.Yes. What our Chalcedonian friend has posted comes straight from the priest’s confession that is part of every liturgy. If you want more explanation, the Fraction prayers are all longer statements of the same thing.
D
dzheremi
Guest
There are many, many fraction prayers, as they very throughout the liturgical year (e.g., fraction for the Apostles’ Fast and Feast, Lenten Fraction, etc). Here is a PDF with many of them.
The Syrian Fraction has some very good, explicit affirmations of non-Chalcedonian Christology in it. Granted, it’s not purely “Coptic”, technically speaking (as its name suggests, we borrowed it from the Syrians at some point), but we share the same Christology…
The Syrian Fraction:
Thus truly the Logos of God suffered in the flesh and was sacrificed and broken on the Cross. His soul parted from His body,
while His divinity in no way parted either from His soul or from His body.
He was pierced in His side with a spear; blood and water flowed from Him for the forgiveness of the whole world. His body was smeared in them, and His soul came and was reunited with His body.
On behalf of the sins of the whole world, the Son died on the Cross.
He turned us from the way on the left towards the right. Through the blood of his Cross, He established the reconciliation of the heavenly with the earthly, and united the people with the peoples and the soul with the body.
And on the third day He rose from the tomb.
One is Emmanuel who cannot be divided after the union; there is no division into two natures. Thus we believe, thus we confess, and thus We affirm that this Body belongs to this Blood, and this Blood belongs to this Body.
You are Christ Our God, who for our sake were pierced in Your side with a spear on the heights of Golgotha in Jerusalem.
You are the Lamb of God who take away the sin of the world.
Absolve us of our transgressions and make us stand at Your right hand side.
O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who are blessed by the Cherubim, hallowed by the Seraphim, and exalted by thousands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand of the rational servants;
who sanctify and complete the gifts and the fullness of the fruits that have been brought to You as a sweet savor; sanctify also all of our bodies, our souls, and our spirits,
so that with a pure heart and an unashamed face, we may call upon You, O God the Father who are in the heavens, and pray, saying,
Our Father…
The Syrian Fraction has some very good, explicit affirmations of non-Chalcedonian Christology in it. Granted, it’s not purely “Coptic”, technically speaking (as its name suggests, we borrowed it from the Syrians at some point), but we share the same Christology…
The Syrian Fraction:
Thus truly the Logos of God suffered in the flesh and was sacrificed and broken on the Cross. His soul parted from His body,
while His divinity in no way parted either from His soul or from His body.
He was pierced in His side with a spear; blood and water flowed from Him for the forgiveness of the whole world. His body was smeared in them, and His soul came and was reunited with His body.
On behalf of the sins of the whole world, the Son died on the Cross.
He turned us from the way on the left towards the right. Through the blood of his Cross, He established the reconciliation of the heavenly with the earthly, and united the people with the peoples and the soul with the body.
And on the third day He rose from the tomb.
One is Emmanuel who cannot be divided after the union; there is no division into two natures. Thus we believe, thus we confess, and thus We affirm that this Body belongs to this Blood, and this Blood belongs to this Body.
You are Christ Our God, who for our sake were pierced in Your side with a spear on the heights of Golgotha in Jerusalem.
You are the Lamb of God who take away the sin of the world.
Absolve us of our transgressions and make us stand at Your right hand side.
O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who are blessed by the Cherubim, hallowed by the Seraphim, and exalted by thousands of thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand of the rational servants;
who sanctify and complete the gifts and the fullness of the fruits that have been brought to You as a sweet savor; sanctify also all of our bodies, our souls, and our spirits,
so that with a pure heart and an unashamed face, we may call upon You, O God the Father who are in the heavens, and pray, saying,
Our Father…
P
ProdigalSon1211
Guest
Ok, so I attended this Coptic Orthodox Church for a Egyptian Festival. I did not go for a service. Sorry I can’t speak on any experiences with that. I had a really good conversation with a member of the Church though. I also got to learn a little bit about Egyptian Culture through ritual dances. I also tried some delicious food as I had a kofta kabob plate. I did get a tour of the Church and watched a short video on the history of the Coptic Orthodox Church.
But, the guy I spoke to told me that the Coptic Orthodox Church came first and then the Coptic Catholic Church came second. Is this true?
I do notice similarities between my faith as a Catholic and the Coptic Orthodox Church. We both affirm the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and we both have the sacrament of repentance. Not sure if the Coptic Orthodox Church has 7 sacraments like Catholics.
Hmmm, I don’t know what else to share?
But, the guy I spoke to told me that the Coptic Orthodox Church came first and then the Coptic Catholic Church came second. Is this true?
I do notice similarities between my faith as a Catholic and the Coptic Orthodox Church. We both affirm the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and we both have the sacrament of repentance. Not sure if the Coptic Orthodox Church has 7 sacraments like Catholics.
Hmmm, I don’t know what else to share?
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
That’s probably a matter of perspective, as the Coptic Catholic Church was born of a partial reunion of Orthodox Copts taking root in 1741. So, by that reckoning, yes, but in reality, they share a common origin.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Yes…in Orthodoxy. That’s the funny thing about the uniates…
Prodigal Son: I am very glad to hear that you had a good experience. It’s too bad that you missed the liturgy. Maybe next time? Anyway, I found the following section on our diocese website explaining the sacraments as understood and taught by the Coptic Orthodox Church, which seems to affirm the seven that are held in common by all apostolic churches (whether they number them as is common in the West or not). You may want to read it if you still have questions from your conversation with the man from the church.
H
Holly3278
Guest
Coptic Orthodox Christians are found in Egypt but other than that, I really don’t know much about them at all. One thing that makes them different from other Orthodox churches is that they do have a “pope”. He is, of course, not the true Pope though but is simply a bishop or a patriarch.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
The Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria is also called pope, if I am not mistaken. The title of pope originates from Alexandria, and it was in fact the bishop of Alexandria who first bore the title of pope. The bishop of Rome was not called pope until the sixth century or so.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well generally speaking, when a church splits into 2 churches, there tends to be a dispute about which is the original and which is new.*
But, with all due respect to what ByzCathCantor is saying, I think in the particular case we’re talking about, it’s quite clear that the Coptic Orthodox Church is the continuation of the Coptic Orthodox Church that existed prior to 1741, and the Coptic Catholic Church was a new church created with the idea of replacing it.
*For example, I’m sure at some point you’ve seen one of the astronomical number of conversations about “Which is the original Church that Christ founded, Orthodoxy or Catholicism?”
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Yes, we’re a crazy bunchYes…in Orthodoxy. That’s the funny thing about the uniates…
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
My comment was purposely limited to the question of “origin”. As to the motives of those who reunited with Rome at the time, or Rome itself, I could not say given my limited study of the subject. It does seem that the circumstances were rather different than perhaps was the case for the Ukrainians/Ruthenians, for example.
I would agree, ecclesiologically, that a new Church was formed.
- Status