Joint statement on Max Michel

[Kris]

Hi,

I wanted to bring the following joint statement between H.B. Pope Theodoros II and Pope Shenouda III to everyones attention (apologies if there's another thread on the same topic, in which case please delete this thread).

http://www.copticpope.org/downloads/commondec/commondec-2-2006eng.pdf

I found the wording very interesting. The statement reads, regarding the self-proclaimed Pope Maximos, "We reject the false ordination of this person, because he wa sordained by bishops who are not recognized by any Orthodox Church."

From what I understand, Max Michel was ordained by some kind of schismatic old calendarist group in the USA, called here "some schismatic and non-canonical bishops who claim to be orthodox."

The wording of this statement seems to suggest that our Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria does not view the Coptic Patriarchate as "schismatic" in the same manner, and that the ordinations of the Coptic Church are valid (and vice versa).

Or am I simply reading too much into this?

In XC,
Kris

[Mina Soliman]

I've had the same sentiments. This is actually the first "official" documentation that makes the two "families" act as if they were One Church.

God bless.

Mina

[John Charmley]

The wording of this statement seems to suggest that our Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria does not view the Coptic Patriarchate as "schismatic" in the same manner, and that the ordinations of the Coptic Church are valid (and vice versa).

Or am I simply reading too much into this?

In XC,
Kris


Dear Kris,


Thank you for sharing this with us. Well, who knows about the answer to you last question - but I read it in a similar fashion, but, of course, read against the reality of the ancient schism, it can't be literally true.

However, if it is a bale of hay in the wind, that would be good - so long as we duck as it passes. Such Joint statements have to be a good sign - but I guess those of us who are eternal optimists shouldn't get too excited.

Still, H.H. Pope Shenouda is a most impressive figure; I've been reading a great deal of his work lately and it deserves a wider circulation - he's a great explicator of the Faith - and committed to what one might call 'real' ecumenism.

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

From what I understand, Max Michel was ordained by some kind of schismatic old calendarist group in the USA, called here "some schismatic and non-canonical bishops who claim to be orthodox."


So, could we consider this the official statement about Mad Max?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Dimitris]

The wording of this statement seems to suggest that our Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria does not view the Coptic Patriarchate as "schismatic" in the same manner, and that the ordinations of the Coptic Church are valid (and vice versa).
As far as I know, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church regard the ordinations of each other Church as valid.

Dimitris

[Father David Moser]

As far as I know, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church regard the ordinations of each other Church as valid.

The use of the word "valid" is quite misleading in that it has a "technical" meaning in Roman Catholicism that it does not have in Orthodoxy. In the Roman Church, validity is somehow contained in the rite itself apart from the Church, thus a sacrament can be "valid" (that is it can have a spiritual reality) but not "licit" (that is it can be "illegal" or not approved by the Church). Thus it is possible to have a "valid" ordination outside the Church. In Orthodoxy this is not possible - sacraments only exist within the Church, thus any embrace of the external form of a sacrament (that is of the ritual or its result) is a matter of the Church reaching out to embrace something and to give it reality where there was no reality before. Fr Alexander Schmemman (I believe) develops this arguement as it relates to heterodox baptism and the practice of receiving converts who received a form of baptism outside the Church. Our "acceptance" of these rites do not imply that there is "validity" outside the Church, but rather that the Church has the ability to reach out and embrace something that comes from outside her and make it her own.

Because sacraments (including holy orders) cannot exist outside the Church, it is not possible, within Orthodoxy, for there to be "valid" or "real" holy orders outside the Church. However, it is possible for the Church to reach out and embrace those actions or persons that have a consistent external form with those of the Church. This is a very subtle and complex issue so determining what is "accepted" by the Church should be left to the hierarchs who have the responsiblity and grace from God to rule the Church.

Fr David Moser

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Father

It is the case that the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria allows his own Greek flock to receive the eucharist in a Coptic Orthodox Church.

It is also the case that the Antochian Patriarch allows members of his own flock to receive the eucharist in a Syrian Orthodox Church.

This seems to me to go well beyond economically accepting 'partial' sacraments when someone comes to the Eastern Orthodox Church.

This can only be understood as proposing the view that the Coptic and Syrian Orthodox Churches are true Orthodox Churches from the Alexandrian and Antiochian point of view.

This is certainly, in reverse, the reason why the Oriental Orthdoox Churches will commune Russians, Greeks, ROCOR, Romanians, Bulgarians etc.

One can receive a 'baptism' economically and fulfill it in Orthodoxy, but one cannot go somewhere else and receive the true eucharist economically. It is either an Orthodox eucharist or not. And the Alexandrians and Antiochians say that the Oriental Orthodox eucharist is a true one, and vice versa in the Eastern Orthodox.

Peter

[Father David Moser]

I guess you'll just have to ask the Patriarch of Alexandra how that works then.

Fr David Moser

[Peter Farrington]

The Patriarch of Alexandria says that such communion is based on the fact that both the Greek and Coptic Orthodox Churches of Alexandria have maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith and an unbroken continuity of Apostolic Tradition. He says..


The Holy Synods of both the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa have already accepted the outcome of the official dialogue on Christology between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, including the two official agreements: the first on Christology signed in June 1989 in Egypt and the second also on Christology and on the lifting of anathemas and restoration of full communion signed in Geneva 1990, in which it is stated that "In the light of our agreed statement on Christology..., we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of Apostolic tradition". It was agreed to have mutual recognition of the sacrament of Baptism, based on what St Paul wrote, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph 4:5)

And the Patriarch of Antioch says that such communion is based on the fact that both communities belong to One Faith, and are sister Churches.


All the meetings, the fellowship, the oral and written declarations meant that we belong to One Faith even though history had manifested our division more than the aspects of our unity.

All this has called upon our Holy Synod of Antioch to bear witness to the progress of our Church in the See of Antioch towards unity that preserves for each Church its authentic Oriental heritage whereby the one Antiochean Church benefits from its sister Church and is enriched in its traditions, literature and holy rituals.

Every endeavour and pursuit in the direction of the coming together of the two Churches is based on the conviction that this orientation is from the Holy Spirit, and it will give the Eastern Orthodox image more light and radiance, that it has lacked for centuries before.

Peter

[Dimitris]

Thank you for your explanation, Father. I actually didn't know the term "valid" has such a different meaning in Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church.

In my humble opinion it is a shame that full communion between the whole EO and the whole OO Church has not yet been restored. It should be the key objective of the two Churches to reunite to one.

Regards,
Dimitris

[John Charmley]

In my humble opinion it is a shame that full communion between the whole EO and the whole OO Church has not yet been restored. It should be the key objective of the two Churches to reunite to one.

Regards,
Dimitris


Dear Dimitris,

Indeed, and I would totally agree with you. This sort of joint statement is a good sign, and after more than a millenium and a half apart, I guess we can't expect anything to happen swiftly.

This site http://www.orthodoxunity.org/ is a good guide to the Joint dialogue which has been going on during the past half century.

Peter Farrington (who maintains that site) cheers me up with what he says above about the attitude of the Patriarch of Alexandria - good to see the dialogue bearing fruit; perhaps this is how it will happen - with those most closely involved taking the lead through their local synods, with others following later when it is clear that there are no results more terrible than Christians uniting in their common Faith; adsit omen.


In Christ,

John

[Gregorios]

Thank you for your explanation, Father. I actually didn't know the term "valid" has such a different meaning in Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church.

The preferred term in our Canon Law class was authentic rather than valid at Saint Vladimir's. What Fr. Raphael has said about there being no sacraments outside the Orthodox Church is not entirely true. It is certainly true for him and his jurisdiction, but it is not necessarily the ecclesiology upon which World Orthodoxy operates. I know it is not the preferred ecclesiology at Seminary by most professors and students.

Correct me if I am wrong Fr. but it seems that you are thinking along the lines of the theory of oikonomia as it is advocated by St. Nikodemos the Haggiorite in his Pedalion (not the Rudder-translation by Apostolos Makrakis). The way theologians in World Orthodoxy often understand ecclesiology does allow for sacraments to exist outside the canonical limits of the Orthodox Church. This position is argued in

- Fr. Nicholas Afanasiev's "Una Sancta", in Fr. M. Plekon ed. Tradition Alive, (Rowman & Litlefield Publishers Inc., New York: 2003), 3-30.

- Fr. Sergius Bulgakov "By Jacob's Well" in Fr. M. Plekon ed. Tradition Alive, (Rowman & Litlefield Publishers Inc., New York: 2003), 55-65. click (http://theunburntbush.blogspot.com/2006/07/by-jacobs-well.html)

- to a certain extent Fr. George Florovsky On the Limits of the Church at the World Council of Churches website click (http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/crete-01-e.html)

- on the diverging pov's in the EO Church see Emmanuel Clapsis The Boundaries of the Church: An Orthodox Debate at the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website click (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8541.asp)

Canon 95 of Trullo (authoritative for the EO Church) recognizes 3 ways of receiving people into the canonical bounds of the EO Church

- Baptism and Chrismation (Holy Communion)
- renunciation of heresy and chrismation (Holy Communion)
- renunciation of heresy and confession of Orthodoxy (Holy Communion)

suggesting 3 different kinds of separation or dis-union. No initiatory rituals are necessary for Oriental Orthodox because they have already received them (rebaptism is a deposable offence according to EO Canon Law. The last way of reception I mentioned seems to imply full recognition and ecclesiality of sacramental grace despite the absence of canonical unity. This is hotly disputed by other Orthodox theologians who hold an ecclesiology somehwat similar to that of the Holy Synod in Resistance (see their Ecclesiology Page here (http://www.synodinresistance.org/Theology_en/Ecclesiology.html)). The pattern we see emerging in the communion agreements between EO and OO as outlined by Peter Farrington seems to have historical warrant and is a tried way to unity and re-union. (Anton Kartashev, "The Paths toward of the Reunion of the Churches" in in Fr. M. Plekon ed. Tradition Alive, (Rowman & Litlefield Publishers Inc., New York: 2003), 205-211).


In my humble opinion it is a shame that full communion between the whole EO and the whole OO Church has not yet been restored. It should be the key objective of the two Churches to reunite to one.

Regards,
Dimitris

Indeed it should be, could be, if enough of us are open to the Holy Spirit softening our hardened hearts to reunite two families of Orthodox. Seperation as well as reunion occur in the heart first.

Gregorios

[John Charmley]

The pattern we see emerging in the communion agreements between EO and OO as outlined by Peter Farrington seems to have historical warrant and is a tried way to unity and re-union. (Anton Kartashev, "The Paths toward of the Reunion of the Churches" in in Fr. M. Plekon ed. Tradition Alive, (Rowman & Litlefield Publishers Inc., New York: 2003), 205-211).



Indeed it should be, could be, if enough of us are open to the Holy Spirit softening our hardened hearts to reunite two families of Orthodox. Seperation as well as reunion occur in the heart first.

Gregorios

Dear Gregorios,

A whole set of thanks are due to you for this very eirenic, wise and informative post.

First, thank you so much for the information and the further reading, which I shall look forward to getting to grips with; one of the great joys of this site is the information which my brothers and sisters in Christ bring with them.

Second, thank you for the tone of your comments. How often such topics are discussed with an attitude of suspicion and mistrust; here you bring the calmness of an informed mind which is grasping the biggest possible picture and the possible benefits for millions of people.

Third, thank you for this comment

Indeed it should be, could be, if enough of us are open to the Holy Spirit softening our hardened hearts to reunite two families of Orthodox. Seperation as well as reunion occur in the heart first.

which does, indeed point to the heart of the matter.

With such a frame of mind, and such examples as you cite, the Faith that moves mountains may yet find its way to heal one of its oldest rifts, without compromising the deposit of the One True Faith once delivered; that, surely, is, for once in this controversial topic, something we could find a consensus one?

Is there anyone here who, if s/he could be assured that there was no compromise on essentials, would not welcome reunion? The way forward does, as you say, seem to be there if we will it; we surely know what His will is?

So, my dear Gregorios, renewed thanks for sharing your wisdom and knowledge with us.

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The preferred term in our Canon Law class was authentic rather than valid at Saint Vladimir's. What Fr. Raphael has said about there being no sacraments outside the Orthodox Church is not entirely true. It is certainly true for him and his jurisdiction, but it is not necessarily the ecclesiology upon which World Orthodoxy operates. I know it is not the preferred ecclesiology at Seminary by most professors and students.

Correct me if I am wrong Fr. but it seems that you are thinking along the lines of the theory of oikonomia as it is advocated by St. Nikodemos the Haggiorite in his Pedalion (not the Rudder-translation by Apostolos Makrakis). The way theologians in World Orthodoxy often understand ecclesiology does allow for sacraments to exist outside the canonical limits of the Orthodox Church.


First off it's helpful to keep in mind that the language we are using (even in seminaries) is only relative and indicative of the effort to try as best as possible to describe the difference between that reality we find within the Church and that outside of it. This language makes a crucial point about the Church. But yet if we strain this language too much we risk losing track of the point that what we are really talking about is how & what the Church witnesses to.

In any case, we have more than ample witness of there being One Church as One Body corresponding to One Christ. To this one Church corresponds in turn Her One life much as sunshine naturally emanates from the sun. The Church primarily witnesses to Her own life because this life is literally the Life which Christ offers the world for its salvation.

The Church knows there is that which is not yet within the Church & that there are those who try to find their life without the Church. But the witness of the Church in regards to that which is without the Church can only be in reference to Herself. This is because the Church knows that fullness of life is only found in reference to the Church & Christ through the Church.

Thus a fundamental aspect of the Church's witness is that She witnesses to One Truth, One Life, and One Christ. A so called 'church' witnessing to multiple 'truths' and 'churches' already is at the point of accepting inner death as the motivation of its witness.

It is in the above overall context of what the Church is and how it witnesses that we must understand Her sacramental life. To not repeat all of these themes over again we just need to keep in mind that since the Church is the One life of Christ from Her naturally proceeds the only truly sacramental life available to us.

The Church uses economia & can speak of 'validity' (I think though the latter concept is very recent in origin) but obviously only in terms of those who come to Her. Economia or 'validity' doesn't imply that without coming to the Church the life of the Church is to be found on some level. Rather these two must first work with the already expressed real desire of someone for the Church; and in turn this implies that this good desire can only be fulfilled within the Church.

The ironic thing is that even as such words as 'validity' are (probably correctly) questioned one gets the idea that we are trying to replace this with ideas which are very similar in content.

It could well be that 'validity' distorts our vision of the Church to something too black & white. But we scarcely have done any better if we substitute for this a mathematical understanding of the sacramental life of the Church which leads us to lose track of the reality of the Oneness of the Church.

The Church's understanding of its Oneness is inseparable from the Church's witness to Herself and what She seeks to offer the world. In these terms of course the Church does refer to what is outside of Herself. But mainly this in terms of Herself, ie always in terms of those who either desire or reject Her.

The Church however has always been strikingly reticent to define that which is outside of Herself. So it is patently unobjective to overlook this reticence and the fact that the Church in fact has been involved in a 2000 year discussion, with no set opinion, about how to relate to this outside reality. The varying opinions about this have not been set by jurisdiction but rather from within the Church as a whole & for as long as the Church has been here on this earth.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Seraphim (Black)]

First I would like to thank Fr. Raphael for his reply to Gregorios in the place of Fr. David.

For it was Fr. David who in this thread remarked on sacraments vis a vis the Orthodox Church. Fr. Raphael's post had something to do with a character in a movie I heard about quite sometime ago.

This is not the first time that I have found replies to either Fr. David or Fr. Raphael inappropriate.

Afterall are they not Priests of our Church? Would one find such temerity in a monastery? Would it be in the better interests of the monastic brotherhood that the younger would approach the elders in such fashion as we see here?

I have been grieved by this before and held my silence, but now I feel that I should speak.

First I ask forgiveness from Fr. David, Fr. Raphael and Gregorios. I have attempted to word my post with care, concern and charity. If my words offend, please find it in your heart to forgive.

Gregorios' statement regarding Fr. David's reply of there being no sacraments outside the Orthodox Church is in the realm of ambiguity, that is, Gregorios says: ' is not [I]entirely true.' (italics - mine)

Gregorios' statement: 'It is certainly true for him and his jurisdiction...' prefaces Fr. Raphael's statement: '[this] already is at the point of accepting inner death as the motivation of its witness'. (italics - mine)

We are pained to learn that Fr. David's sacramental theology according to Gregorios' understanding 'is not the preferred ecclesiology at [St. Vladimar's] Seminary.'

That 'the way theologians in World Orthodoxy often understand ecclesiology does allow for sacraments to exist outside the canonical limits of the Orthodox Church.' (italics - mine)

Best not mention this on the Holy Mountain, for the ambiguity herein strains the limits of charity.

Could you clarify if the following statement is your opinion alone or in your opinion is the position of the Orthodox Church?:

'Rebaptism is a deposable offence according to EO canon law.'

Again descending into ambiguity Gregorios quotes Canon 95 of Trullo, and states that the third method of reception 'seems to imply full recognition and ecclesiality of sacramental grace despite the absence of canonical unity'.

Finally, I find your last point incomplete:

'Seperation as well as reunion occur in the heart first'.

Entrance into the Life in Christ is an ineffable synergy in which the Grace of the Holy Trinity and the humble, repentant supplication of a child of God is accomplished.

As Fr. Raphael makes clear this occurs mystically in the Holy Orthodox Church.

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Interesting reading, as ever. But I am now puzzled.

I grasp what you say about the slipperiness and contingency of words, but these words - 'restoration of full communion' - are not in line with what you are saying, or what the Joint statement quoted above says.

There is 'one Church', but is it speaking with 'one' voice?

(Can I stress, to avoid any misunderstanding, this is a genuine question).


In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Interesting reading, as ever. But I am now puzzled.

I grasp what you say about the slipperiness and contingency of words, but these words - 'restoration of full communion' - are not in line with what you are saying, or what the Joint statement quoted above says.

There is 'one Church', but is it speaking with 'one' voice?

(Can I stress, to avoid any misunderstanding, this is a genuine question).


In Christ,

John

Dear John,

Sorry- I was posting in regards to what Grigorios wrote. Not about the joint statement between H.B. Pope Theodoros II and Pope Shenouda III referred to above. When I did a word search for 'restoration of full communion' it appears in Peter's post not mine.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

What Fr. Raphael (sic) has said about there being no sacraments outside the Orthodox Church is not entirely true. It is certainly true for him and his jurisdiction, but it is not necessarily the ecclesiology upon which World Orthodoxy operates. I know it is not the preferred ecclesiology at Seminary by most professors and students.


Well it is certainly the "preferred theology" of my Archbishop (Fr Raphael's Archbishop as well, btw), who is incidentally a graduate of St Vladimir's seminary. Also, I was under the impression (and prehaps the incorrect impression) that this was the basic presumption of Fr Alexander Schmemman, dean and professor of St Vladimir's. Apparently St Vladimir's has changed since the time of the Archbishop's study there. (entirely possible)

Fr David Moser

[Gregorios]

Fathers,


Well it is certainly the "preferred theology" of my Archbishop (Fr Raphael's Archbishop as well, btw), who is incidentally a graduate of St Vladimir's seminary. Also, I was under the impression (and prehaps the incorrect impression) that this was the basic presumption of Fr Alexander Schmemman, dean and professor of St Vladimir's. Apparently St Vladimir's has changed since the time of the Archbishop's study there. (entirely possible)

Fr David Moser

I realize it is likely to be your preferred ecclesiology. I have a very good friend (we consider him family) at seminary who is himself a member of ROCOR but with whom I have had many, many talks on ecclesiology. His is virtually identical to that of the Holy Synod in Resistance, mine is much more influenced by Fr. Nicholas Afanasiev, Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, and I find myself much closer to Metropolitan Damaskinos (of Switzerland ?) as represented in the Clapsis article I referred to above. Fr. Alexander Schmeman's views I do not know. He is usually brought up in regard to Liturgical theology and only once in Canon Law concerning the autocephaly of the OCA and its recognition in World Orthodoxy (or lack thereof).

What I wrote is a simple observation that a unified and uniform ecclesiology do not exist in World Orthodoxy. This is clearly brought forward in the Clapsis article above on the GOARCH website. The standard view that seems to be operative at SVS currently is that advocated by Fr. John Erickson. By no means as open as the views of Metr. Damaskinos, but also by no means as hardline as that of the Holy Synod in Resistance. As my ROCOR friend likes to say, 'SVS is a hotbed of ecumenism' with which he still strongly disagrees (ecumenism being branded as a pan-heresy). Whereas I would say the SVS involvement in ecumenism is just fine. Prof. Peter Bouteneff has several articles online on the Orthodox Peace Fellowship website (click (http://www.incommunion.org/articles/essays/orthodoxy-ecumenism)) defending what i think is representative of SVS. I do not hold myself to be representative of SVS views. I am only a student and I do not speak for the seminary in any way.

But perhaps this takes us too far off-topic and we should discontinue this conversation here to (perhaps) pick it up elsewhere and at an another time? Thank you for your participation and insightful replies.

Gregorios

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Fathers,



I realize it is likely to be your preferred ecclesiology. I have a very good friend (we consider him family) at seminary who is himself a member of ROCOR but with whom I have had many, many talks on ecclesiology. His is virtually identical to that of the Holy Synod in Resistance, mine is much more influenced by Fr. Nicholas Afanasiev, Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, and I find myself much closer to Metropolitan Damaskinos (of Switzerland ?) as represented in the Clapsis article I referred to above. Fr. Alexander Schmeman's views I do not know. He is usually brought up in regard to Liturgical theology and only once in Canon Law concerning the autocephaly of the OCA and its recognition in World Orthodoxy (or lack thereof).

What I wrote is a simple observation that a unified and uniform ecclesiology do not exist in World Orthodoxy. This is clearly brought forward in the Clapsis article above on the GOARCH website. The standard view that seems to be operative at SVS currently is that advocated by Fr. John Erickson. By no means as open as the views of Metr. Damaskinos, but also by no means as hardline as that of the Holy Synod in Resistance. As my ROCOR friend likes to say, 'SVS is a hotbed of ecumenism' with which he still strongly disagrees (ecumenism being branded as a pan-heresy). Whereas I would say the SVS involvement in ecumenism is just fine. Prof. Peter Bouteneff has several articles online on the Orthodox Peace Fellowship website (click (http://www.incommunion.org/articles/essays/orthodoxy-ecumenism)) defending what i think is representative of SVS. I do not hold myself to be representative of SVS views. I am only a student and I do not speak for the seminary in any way.

But perhaps this takes us too far off-topic and we should discontinue this conversation here to (perhaps) pick it up elsewhere and at an another time? Thank you for your participation and insightful replies.

Gregorios



One of the main points of my post this morning was mainly to point out (along the lines of Fr David's post above) that these two views have co-existed within the One Church for many years. Agreeing with Fr David's post I was also trying to suggest that those who hold to one view or another are not restricted to one jurisdiction or seminary. There are those from pretty well all of our seminaries who support the strict view as well as the less strict view. In our church there is a very well respected senior priest who consistently defends the view that economia as it was previously practiced within our church is still a valid manner of receiving the heterodox.

Personally, I fully accept the wisdom of our rocor bishops in offering the more strict sacramental standard. Mainly this is because I believe that the more strict standard is more suitable to our times. Also, as I was trying to say this morning, I have come to strongly believe that economia as practiced by the Church never implied that the grace of the Church is found outside of the Church. Indeed I have come to think that the Church purposefully does not witness except to the grace which it offers through Her life & sacraments.

Economia then simply means that the Church is always free to offer its grace in the manner it finds suitable to the specific occasion. Chiefly it is our Orthodox hierarchy who are given the task of discerning and blessing this. The priests of the Church act consistently with this vision of its hierarchy.

But perhaps a presentation of the theology behind these two views would be interesting.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear John,

Sorry- I was posting in regards to what Grigorios wrote. Not about the joint statement between H.B. Pope Theodoros II and Pope Shenouda III referred to above. When I did a word search for 'restoration of full communion' it appears in Peter's post not mine.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Dear Fr. Raphael,

The ecclesiology of ROCOR is plain enough, my question was about the ecclesiology of the statement of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, with which it would seem ROCOR is in disagreement. Interesting though these cultural differences are, they don't get to the heart of my question - but such discussions rarely do. I guess the answer is embedded in the mindset, which is as it should be, no doubt.


In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

The ecclesiology of ROCOR is plain enough, my question was about the ecclesiology of the statement of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, with which it would seem ROCOR is in disagreement. Interesting though these cultural differences are, they don't get to the heart of my question - but such discussions rarely do. I guess the answer is embedded in the mindset, which is as it should be, no doubt.


In Christ,

John

I still get the feeling I'm missing something! :) But if we're asking why the difference between the Joint Statement & ROCOR's position this comes down to Orthodox ecclesiology where each church with its synod of bishops is free to determine such matters.

In practice however a priest would always consult his diocesan bishop unless he was confident he already knew how his bishop would have directed him.

I'm guessing however that this kind of ecclesiology would be disorienting for someone coming from outside of Orthodoxy where there may be more administrative centralization.

For us we share fundamentals concerning the Faith but yet a large degree of discretion in how we implement this. So there are real variations from church to church, jurisdiction to jurisdiction, diocese to diocese and also parish to parish. The more fundamental something is the less variation, and the less fundamental the more variation. Some of what constitutes being fundamental or not is understood from direct episcopal direction & synodal decisions, but other things are understood simply from an awareness of how the life of the Church is implemented throughout the Church. In time between straight forward following direction from your bishop and a sensitivity to what is 'going on' in the Church one develops an almost instinctual sense for what is proper wherever one finds oneself within the Church.

Again it probably all looks very chaotic and even contradictory to someone not Orthodox but once you live with it for awhile you adjust, see how it actually all works and see its wisdom.

More importantly however you recognize how this is a faithful reflection of an Orthodox ecclesiology where the delicate balance between discernment and obedience must always be allowed for. Standing back and looking at the forest for the trees it can seem contradictory. But you gradually learn that the differences in implementation are really an overall check & balance, guided by the Holy Spirit, which prevents extremes & maintains an overall sense of balance.

I'm open though to trying to answer any questions you may have about this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

I am indebted to you for this clarification.


I'm guessing however that this kind of ecclesiology would be disorienting for someone coming from outside of Orthodoxy where there may be more administrative centralization.

Coming from an Anglican background what worried me was not the lack of centralisation but rather what might be taken to be a similarity with what I am used to!

That is one of the reasons I am grateful for you taking the time to answer my question.

This

there are real variations from church to church, jurisdiction to jurisdiction, diocese to diocese and also parish to parish. The more fundamental something is the less variation, and the less fundamental the more variation.
is what I am familiar with - but the second sentence makes all the difference.

In Christ,

John

[Kosta]

To the original post about Mad Max has one thing missing. Why isnt the latin coptic patriarch Antonios Naguib not condemned as well?

[Peter Farrington]

The latin patriarch has been around for 100 years and though there are some tensions they are not as directly confrontational as max michael.

[John Charmley]

To the original post about Mad Max has one thing missing. Why isnt the latin coptic patriarch Antonios Naguib not condemned as well?

Dear Kosta,

Should we not exercise great care in wishing to condemn others? Our Lord Himself tells us in Luke 6:37:

37 Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven

Of course, there are occasions, as with Max Michel, when it is necessary for the hierarchs of the Church to pronounce in a way that protects their flocks from those who would lead them astray; but surely we, as laymen, should be very careful in who we condemn?

As we are told in John 3:17:

17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

I am minded of what St. Paul tells the Romans in Romans 2:1:

1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

These things should be bore in mind as we struggle with our sinful tendency to condemn others.

In Christ,

John

[Kosta]

Dear Charming,

The only thing i see from the statement of condemning Max Micha but not the equally schismatic, heretical & violator of canons the latin Naguib as evidence on the eastern part of an inferiority complex. Why is Max Micha a charlatan but not the latin patriarch as well? Many centuries ago the OO had no problem comdemning Pope Leo.

It seems to me that Alexandria likes to play the part of second fiddle and fears Rome. What do they fear? Do you believe the Copts will leave pope Shenouda and join with the latin coptic churches or do the copts believe the latin patriarch is a rightful alexandrian patriarch as well? The greek patriarch is lost and has no flock to lose in egypt so i dont expect much from him, but will do as he always has which is nothing.

Easterners need to wake up and step up to the plate and defend right-belief from heresy. Believe me standing up to the heretics will do more to foster reunion between EO & OO than some silly signed statements that EO does not recognize to begin with.

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Kosta

I must say that I don't think you will foster any sort of fruitful discussion in this thread if you take the rather abrupt tone which you have.

The Coptic Orthodox are willing to talk to many other Christian communities, and these include the Eastern Orthodox as well as the Roman Catholics. I don't really see what your message is trying to achieve other than insulting the Coptic Orthodox and the Roman Catholic communities, as well as your own Eastern Orthodox community in Egypt.

Peter

[John Charmley]

Dear Kosta,


Easterners need to wake up and step up to the plate and defend right-belief from heresy. Believe me standing up to the heretics will do more to foster reunion between EO & OO than some silly signed statements that EO does not recognize to begin with.

There seems, alas, little to say. It seems sad that such a fervent Christian should feel such a tone appropriate witness to His Lord's love for mankind; we all do what we do in His name; adsit omen.

In Christ, but also in sorrow,

John

[Sameha]

Greetings,

I do not believe one should read more into this statement than what is originally intended by the two Patriarchs of Alexandria. Max Michel claimed that he received valid ordination by Eastern Orthodox hierarchs, and the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria of course must dispute this as it came from schismatics. Although Max Michel's target is focused on the bigger prize, the Coptic church, and therefore the involvement of Pope Shenouda in the statement, the ordination of Max effects the Greek Patriarch more than the COptic Pope. Technically, he would be a rival of the Greek Patriarch being ordained from the same denomination.

There is a reality of schism between the Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians. To have a unity between both groups an official statement by both Churches, by the ecumenical body of both churches, has to declare such in clear terms. To use (or abuse) a statement on Max Michel to declare a unity that lacks the communion in ONE body of Christ through the Eucharist is not honest and is just a wishful thinking.

Untiy steps are going well, as far as I understand. Let it take its full course for a more meaningful unity rather than squeezing a unity out of a statement concerning what many consider a government puppet like Max Michel.

[Mina Soliman]

Dear Sameha,

I think you're underestimating the agreement here. Besides the fact that the two Churches of Alexandria are practically "sister Churches" by the sharing of sacraments, this agreement really developed that type of language.

The first sentence beginning with the "We" pronoun ends up with a proclamation that there are some "non-Orthodox" and "schismatic" bishops. To make this agreement together and yet to not ignore the "reality of the Chalcedonian schism" would make this Max Michel agreement a laughable one.

"False" ordination and "invalid" sacramental and ecclesiastical status assumes that both these Patriarchs have agreed quite the opposite about each other. If I was to make a joint agreement against someone, I would not choose a heretic or schismatic on my side, not would I?

It would be more consistent if both Patriarchs have done separate proclamations against Max Michel. Besides, Max Michel really is a threat (although I don't think he is that much of a threat) to the Coptic Church, considered he has adopted everything in his church in a Coptic manner. One person used the term "Orthoducks" for those vagant groups (which are rampant in the US). I think this is Egypt's first (and hopefully only) Orthoduck that both these Patriarchs have to deal with.

God bless.

[Sameha]

Dear Mina,

I believe you are reading too much in a statement that neither intended to declare unity between two churches in schism nor did annul the 15 centuries of enstrangement between both churches. It is plain and simple and does not require twisting: Max Michel is not part of any of the two churches and both churches declare his ordination to be uncanonical.

Declaring unity is done by a council or by a series of back and forth letters between synods that ends with restoration of communion. You can take the Roman catholic church and the Assyrian church unity as an example, or the reunion formula between Cyril and John in 433 a.d. as a model.

I am not sure that the word unity even came into the joint statement. The fact that both churches have a joint statement is not much different than the joint statement of egyptian churches on homosexuality or a joint statement by El_azhar and the Coptic Church about peace in the Middle East. You do not think that we are in communion with Islam, do you, by virtue of meeting their leaders and having joint statements ?

Let us not try to force a unity that is progressing slowly but surely and is taking sure steps towards the ultimate prize. It just hurts our cause and makes unity supporters look rather ignorant about the boundaries of the church.

God bless you as well.

[Mina Soliman]

Dear Sameha,

First, I think you misunderstood me. I agree that this declaration does not speak about unity between the two churches. But I am contending that the language used implies an already existing unity between the two churches. You still haven't addressed a very important issue. Why would I choose a schismatic on my side to condemn a heretic when I can do this on my own?

Second, This is not a joint statement about peace or homosexuality or Christology. This is a joint statement about declaring someone "not Orthodox" and "schismatic" (especially that last word if you read it carefully). It's like making a joint statement with Muslims about Hindus not having the true God. Why should I necessarily make a joint statement (keep in mind the word "joint") with a religion that I consider not having the true God about another religion not having the true God? Now consider this Max Michel statement. Why should I make a joint statement with a "schismatic church" over another "schismatic?"

I also want to bring to your attention Sameha that the two Orthodox churches of Alexandria have pretty much accepted all the sacraments of one another. According to HE Metropolitan Bishoy in a lecture about the latest in ecumenical talks, the two churches of Alexandria and the two churches of Antioch have accepted that there be no need for someone to ask special permission of a bishop to take communion in a church they were not baptized or raised in. In other words, I as a Copt can take communion in a Greek Alexandrian church (if this is necessarily a closer church for me) without special permission or anointing or proclamation of faith. Therefore, I don't feel I am "reading too much" into the statement when in fact I'm using reality of the present relationship between the two churches of Alexandria. To ignore the implied "oneness" in the agreement made against Max Michel not only ignores this reality, but makes this joint agreement one of the most vain and useless documents in history.

God bless.

[Sameha]

Dear Mina,

thank you for your reply. I am not aware of the statement by H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy about inter-communion between the Orientals and the Eastern. Is it sanctified by the Holy Synod ? If true, these are excellent news.

Restoring communion is essentially union, for the church is defined as the one body and the partakers of the body of Christ. I was under the impression that the sacrament of marriage is the only one restored, with prohibition on inter-communion, between the two churches.

If you could, please, would you refer to the source of this decision ? I have tried to search the Keraza magazine, which is the official magazine of the Coptic Church, and could not find much about it.

God bless you.

[Mina Soliman]

Dear Sameha,

There has been a lecture given by HE Metropolitan Bishoy, but the lecture is in Arabic. It can be found here:

http://coptichymns.net/modules.php?name=Coptic_Media&op=modload&file=index&p=Sermons/Arabic%20Sermons/Metropolitan%20Pishoy%20of%20Damiette/The_Different_Views_of_Salvation

And it's the lecture "Oecumenical Discussions Through 2003."

According to a forum discussion, webmaster "PaulS" in translation wrote:


As of 1990 and beyond:

+ Roman Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox men and women are allowed to marry one another. If any Roman Orthodox person marries a Coptic Orthodox person, the priests of each church should fully accept the couple as though they were raised in their churches.

As of 1998 and beyond:

+ Since we believe in the baptism of any Orthodox church that believes in our baptism, there is no need to baptize or anoint with Myron Roman Orthodox persons marrying Coptic Orthodox persons.

+ We do not refuse Holy Communion to Roman Orthodox persons and vice versa.

+ No Coptic Orthodox priest may, however, participate in a Roman Orthodox liturgical service of any type. There is no agreed protocol for liturgical communion... yet.

http://coptichymns.net/PNphpBB2-viewtopic-t-6215.html

God bless.

Mina

[Peter Farrington]

I don't have access to the recent statement by HE Bishoy, but the Joint Agreement between the Alexandrian churches of 1991 goes beyond marriage.

It says...

Each of the two Patriarchates shall also accept to perform all of its other sacraments to that new family of Mixed Christian Marriage.

Therefore the Eastern Orthodox members of a mixed family may receive all the sacraments in the Coptic Orthodox Church, and the Coptic Orthodox members of a mixed family may receive all the sacraments in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Of course this applies only to members of a mixed marriage, but it is the principle which counts. If the two Churches did not think that the other members were properly Orthodox they would not be able to receive the sacraments.

The agreement between the Syrian and Antiochian Churches of 1991 is much closer, but uses the same principle.

In localities where there is only one priest, from either Church, he will celebrate services for the faithful of both Churches, including the Divien Liturgy, pastoral duties, and holy matrimony.

and

If a bishop from one Church and a priest from the sister Church happen to concelebrate a service, the first will preside even when it is the priest's parish.

and

If a bishop from one Church and a priest from the sister Church happen to concelebrate a service, the first will preside even when it is the priest's parish.

These latter statements are all from the document issued by the Antiochian Patriarchate and signed by His Holiness.

Peter Theodore

[Sameha]

I know these statements brought up in the previous post, because I had to consult them ten years ago for my "mixed" marriage. They are not applied as presented above though. My husband, a Roman Orthodox as well call the Orthodox Chalcedonians in Egypt, having been baptized in the Greek Orthodox Church, was received in the Coptic orthodox Church by being anointed with the Holy Myron. I remember very well one of the prominent theologians and priests of the Coptic Church in Alexandria citing St. Severus as the source for this practice. This priest is a member of the unity talks as far as I understand and a very famous name.

There was no mixed marriage, it was a coptic orthodox marriage. The statement does not state that they can have communion alternatively between the two churches, rather that they choose one church and stay with it for the sake of sacramental life. This is how it was explained to us. Our children are baptized in the Coptic Orthodox Church as well. The statement, as applied, did not change much of the already established practice since Chalcedon and was considered as redundant.

But the statement by Metropolitan Bishoy is the interesting one, for if it is not his own opinion but rather that of the Holy Synod, it essentially establishes union.

[John Charmley]

Dear Sameha,

Thank you for this information; how interesting to see how it is put into practice on the ground, so to say.

The major statement on this issue is to be found here:
http://www.coptic.net/articles/OrthodoxUnityDialog.txt
although there may be more recent ones.

I suspect that on both sides there will be those who will contest this, but we should be relaxed about it - if it is the will of the Holy Spirit it will prevail - if not, then not.

Still, it is better than how things once were - and that is a blessing to many individuals in the same situation as yourself.

In Christ,

John