This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

New Coptic Pope elected!

#1CorporateKnightPosted 11/4/2012 4:38:45 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20192922

I'm hoping HH will be able to defend the Coptics agaisnt those savages in Egypt.
---
[Vatican Foreign Legion]
http://i43.tinypic.com/359b6m1.gif http://i41.tinypic.com/24fwsa9.gif
#2Burning_WolfXPosted 11/4/2012 9:15:42 PM
Many years to His Holiness, and to the Coptic Church!
---
Sometimes I'd like to ask God why He allows poverty, suffering, and injustice when He could do something about it. But Im afraid He'd ask me the same thing.
#3Chaos ScadePosted 11/5/2012 12:47:52 AM
They should have just elected Pope Theophorus and united the EO and OO patriarchates there and then.
---
Taste the fountain of immortality.
http://i43.tinypic.com/iqehc6.jpg
#4the_hedonistPosted 11/5/2012 7:19:59 AM
I've heard rumors that the EOC and OOC is closer to union than ever. How close to truth do you think that is, Chaos?
---
"Knowing is the responsible human struggle to rely on clues to focus on a coherent pattern and submit to its reality." -Esther Meek
#5Dathrowed1Posted 11/5/2012 7:28:15 AM
I have met some Copts, they said Egypt hasn't been kind to them and they hope to never return
---
sig
#6Chaos ScadePosted 11/7/2012 2:36:41 AM
the_hedonist posted...
I've heard rumors that the EOC and OOC is closer to union than ever. How close to truth do you think that is, Chaos?


as far as coming to an understanding regarding the so-called theological divide is concerned, yes, that's probably closer than ever. I don't really think that there's anything of substance that divides us, but the real problem kind of goes beyond that. They refuse to recognise Chalcedon as an Ecumenical Council because of the political fallout and historical animosity that occurred in the aftermath that they have internalised, even though they've acknowledged it as totally theologically Orthodox (though at the same time they whine about how it had "Nestorian tendencies" or whatever). There's also the issue of the different OO groups who are a mix of close and far on just exactly how they see us - the Armenians and the Ethiopians can still be pretty aggressive and accuse us of being Nestorians, whereas the Copts and the Syriacs are a lot more friendly towards us and keen for some sort of union. However, I'm not sure that there can be anything of a "union of churches" as such in the sense of two "incomplete" bodies uniting and becoming "complete," but rather I think the only way it would work would be for us to facilitate the "conversion" of non-Chalcedonians to Chalcedonian Orthodoxy whilst not stopping them from retaining their own methods of theological expression and liturgical praxis (which is one of the things I would love to gain from any potential union - more liturgical diversity!), but recognising that there were in schism and that they need to actually formally accept the ecumenical nature of the later councils even if they don't necessarily use the particular dogmatic formulas in their own faith and worship (seeing as though they are simply different ways of saying the same thing).
---
Taste the fountain of immortality.
http://i43.tinypic.com/iqehc6.jpg
#7the_hedonistPosted 11/8/2012 8:30:18 AM
So essentially the option is conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy, and not reunion?
---
"Knowing is the responsible human struggle to rely on clues to focus on a coherent pattern and submit to its reality." -Esther Meek
#8Burning_WolfXPosted 11/8/2012 11:00:34 AM
the_hedonist posted...
So essentially the option is conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy, and not reunion?


I've heard mixed opinions. Chaos_Scade's view, however, is probably the most common among the Eastern Orthodox. I've heard others say that the last 4 Ecumenical Councils were really all more Byzantine affairs; for example, the OO have never really had to deal with iconoclasm. It's basically agreed that the OO are not, nor have they ever been, Monophysite, nor even Monothelites. They are Miaphysites and Miathelites, and these positions have been recognized as stating the same thing as the Chalcedonian position.

So my understanding is (and Chaos, correct me if I'm wrong) that, as things stand now, the Oriental Orthodox would not have to "convert" to Eastern Orthodoxy--we already share the same faith, just with some different nuances. There is nothing in the last 4 Ecumenical Councils that the OO would disagree with in terms of faith and doctrine. The only real thing dividing us is a lot of historical circumstances, and a good bit of feuding. It would be a proper reunion, but before that happens, EO and OO would have to agree on the number of ecumenical councils (seven), acknowledge each other's Saints and writings, and figure out the administrative logistics of reunion.
---
Sometimes I'd like to ask God why He allows poverty, suffering, and injustice when He could do something about it. But Im afraid He'd ask me the same thing.
#9CorporateKnight(Topic Creator)Posted 11/8/2012 7:34:09 PM
the_hedonist posted...
So essentially the option is conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy, and not reunion?


Not really, just accept the councils and continue as they are.. at best.
---
[Vatican Foreign Legion]
http://i43.tinypic.com/359b6m1.gif http://i41.tinypic.com/24fwsa9.gif
#10the_hedonistPosted 11/12/2012 2:37:49 PM
But if they have to recognize all the councils, is that not essenitally conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy? Couldn't the EO church allow reunion and also allow there to be individuals in the Church to not recognize all the same councils as ecumenical? To me, only allowing the OO in granted recognition of all 7 councils is forcing conversion, not reunion.
---
"Knowing is the responsible human struggle to rely on clues to focus on a coherent pattern and submit to its reality." -Esther Meek