Coptic Orthodox

Mor Ephrem · Post by **Mor Ephrem** » Sat 19 July 2003 6:39 pm

Paradosis wrote:
Mor,

I'm a bit confused, I've seen the quote that you have there (or pretty near to that quote-- what we pray in the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom) attributed to Saint Emperor Justinian. Are you saying that Bishop Alexander attributed it to Severus of Antioch, or that that is who you have seen it attributed to by others?

Sorry, Justin, let me try to clarify. The hymn that I quoted is from a ROCOR text of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. It is that very hymn with which the Syrian and Indian Orthodox begin every Liturgy, and on days on which the Liturgy is not celebrated, it is sung daily at the Sixth Hour:

I will exalt You, O my Lord, the King, the Only-begotten Son and the Word of the heavenly Father, Who, by Your nature, are immortal. You accepted, by Your grace, and came down for the life and salvation of mankind, and did become incarnate of the holy, glorious and pure Virgin, Mother of God, Mary. Who without change did become a man and was crucified for us. O Christ our God, Who by Your death trampled our death and destroyed it. You Who are One of the Holy Trinity, and are worshiped and glorified in unity with Your Father and Your Holy Spirit, have compassion on us all.

http://sor.cua.edu/Liturgy/Anaphora/PubCeleb.html

I read some time ago the quote from His Grace's website, and thought it was interesting how, on the one hand, some Eastern Orthodox are ignorant of what the Oriental Orthodox actually do believe (although not ignorant of what they think the OO believe), and yet, on the other hand, at least one Eastern Orthodox bishop seems to feel that this hymn summarises the Eastern Orthodox teaching on Jesus Christ, and this hymn itself was penned by none other than Saint Severus of Antioch (our liturgical books refer to it as the hymn of Mor Severios). I have heard it attributed to the Emperor Justinian. I have also heard that it was penned by Saint Severus, and the latter (or some other OO prelate) requested of Justinian its addition to the EO Liturgy in an attempt to reunite the two factions. I am not too familiar with the history. My point is not regarding history, however. If this hymn is an accurate summary of the true Orthodox teaching on the Son of God, then it should be clear that both Churches, by professing the faith this hymn proclaims, believe the same thing fundamentally.

Perhaps you would say this is too simplistic, and refer me to Chalcedon, the Tome of Leo*, etc. I do not think it is simplistic; rather, I think it is simple. From where I stand, we are not as "monophysite" as some think we are. Councils and Tomes can be debated, and I would not deny one the right to affirm Chalcedon and the Tome and say we are wrong to reject it and provide reasons why we are wrong to reject it. But I do not think that our rejection of the Tome or our lack of recognition of Chalcedon as an ecumenical council makes us, by that fact, heretics when it comes to Christology. Our Liturgy (and, apparently, yours) begs to differ.

*There is an interesting article on orthodoxchristianity.net, in the Non-Chalcedonian section, about the Tome of Leo. I think it would be interesting to see some Eastern Orthodox response to it.

Mor Ephrem · Post by **Mor Ephrem** » Sat 19 July 2003 6:44 pm

OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:
Hello Mor Ephrem,

I hope all is well with you. I just got through reading "St. Thomas Christians Revolution in 1653" by "Rev." Jacob Kollaparambil.

Repetitive and at times the thoughts in the book seem to go nowhere, but overall, a fascinating history.

So Mor, why is it that you cannot confess the Tome of Leo?

All is well with me, OOD, thank you. I hope you are well.

My reply to Justin refers him (and everyone else) to an article on OC.net about the Tome. I think it would be interesting to see responses to it, from you in particular (although I disagree with you on these matters, I like listening to what you have to say).

I have not read the book you have finished reading, so I cannot comment on it. But we certainly do have an interesting history, no?

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Sat 19 July 2003 6:51 pm

Jakub

Like I said, I am not one for ethnic titles or labels.

Are you also offended when Saint Paul, and Jesus himself, addresses people by such labels in the Bible? Both use geographical and ethnic labels to identify people that they are talking about or talking to. Is it ok for Paul to talk about "the Church of God in such and such a place," and not ok for us to talk about "the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad"? Is it ok for Jesus to give messages to "the Church which is in such and such a place," but not ok for us to say something about "the Church of Constantinople" or "the Orthodox Church in America (aka OCA)"?

I am searching Orthodoxy to see where and if I fit in.

If you think Orthodoxy has kept the faith unpolluted for the last 2,000 years, and that she is the very body of Christ, the Church of the Apostles, then you are welcome to come into the body. If you don't believe these rather exclusivistic claims, then you will never fit in. As I've had to face as an American with no real American Orthodox Church (let alone a traditionalist one!), ethnicity is besides the point: you go to where the truth is and try to fit in as best you can. If you are among Christians, they will try to help you assimilate as much as they can.

I do not care to be recruited by one group, although I have been approached here.

Welcome to Orthodoxy I've had everyone from HOCNA to ROAC invite me to their Churches. Don't think of it as recruiting... that could possibly lead to a judgment of their motives. Think of it as really zealous people who are trying to spread the faith by inviting people to their Churches

You still have not replied to the question of detrimental comments regarding ones communional ways or zealous attack of ones practice of Orthodoxy.

I thought I had done that on another thread, Jakub, when I tried to divert the thread away from discussion of a personal nature, and tried to direct it towards discussion of general principles. I'm not going to talk about such issues as long as the context is one of a personal (and not general) nature. If you'd like to start a thread about the issue, and approach it as a general topic, then I'd join in with some comments.

Methinks thou dost protesteth too much! :mrgreen:

Jakub · Post by **Jakub** » Sat 19 July 2003 9:03 pm

Paradosis,

Let us call it a draw and put it to rest until another time.

james

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Sat 19 July 2003 9:05 pm

Sounds good to me. I do tend to talk too much for my own good

bogoliubtsy · Post by **bogoliubtsy** » Sat 26 July 2003 11:44 am

Back to the original point of this thread-

This is taken from a Coptic Orthodox discussion forum:

"The tattoo of the cross on the right wrist was originally a way to mark all the Christians in Egypt. This was done by the muslims as the same way the star of David was worn by the Jews. After years of doing so, the Coptic people continued to tattoo their right wrist as a way to show their loyalty to their faith... believing in Jesus Christ as the savior of the world."

"My dad tattooed us as little children in Egypt to protect us. That is the true meaning of this tradition. We took an act that was forced upon us, to help discriminate us and keep us in our place. Now, people do it in defiance. There were even some people that tattooed a cross on their forehead. It’s become a sign that we are NOT ashamed of who we are and what we believe in. I'm glad I was tattooed. And now that I live here in America, it has given me many opportunities to tell people about our religion when they inquire about my cross. I'm actually thinking about re-tattooing the cross (it has faded a little over the years.) "