From OrthodoxChristianity.net: [b] 1. The theology of the Fathers such as "Origen, St. Didymus, and St. Cyril"... "did not at all depart from the Holy Scriptures... it was their chief and primary source."
2. The Patristic era ended after the 5th century, which was the golden age. After this, there was either political or theological decline for all Christians.
3. In the west, Scholasticism developed in cathedrals and monasteries due to the following factors:
a) Use of Latin and lack of knowledge of Greek in the West. b) The Westerner's use of reason and logic in determining dogma. c) The impact of Arab-Muslim texts translated into Latin, such as Averroes and Avicenna.
4. Thus Scholasticism represents a departure from the biblically-centered Patristic theology.
5. A discussion of Anselm, Aquinas, and the Council of Trent.
6. So what does this have to do with Orthodox Copts? Ignorance about this history has led to the introduction of Scholastic ideas among Copts and among all the Orthodox-- thus we hear the teachings of Anselm, Aquinas, and the Council of Trent in modern Arabic books more than the teachings of Athanasius and Cyrill.
7. A discussion of major changes in Catholic theology, due to the re-discovery of Patristic writers in the 20th century, regarding the nature of the Church, the liturgy, the authority of the Pope, and the role of the laity, following Vatican II.
8. Quotes Florovsky on the introduction of Scholastic thought into the Orthodox Church and the question of "Western Captivity."
9. After the Arabs invaded in the 7th century, Copts became estranged from the Greek language, which also created a "void" in Coptic theological knowledge during the Middle Ages.
10. In modern times, faced with Catholic and Protestant missionaries, Copts relied on theological works that were available in Arabic, all of which relied on Scholastic theology. (He then makes a list of modern Coptic books that fell under such influence.)
11. Those patristic translations into Arabic that were made during the beginning of the 20th century, did not receive a wide audience.
12. However, in the 2nd half of the 20th century, there was a call to return to patristic sources. This was reacted against by those who had become accustomed to Scholastic theology.
13. For the past 30 years there have been two schools of theology among the Copts, which instead of leading to productive dialogue has led to partisanship, infighting, and mutual accusations of heresy.
14. A call for more serious study into the authentic heritage of the Coptic Church.
i don't think there is much fighting; most of us are willing to accept there are some differences in focus, but the Bible studies i have been to have been places where questions and debate are encouraged, but people do not get annoyed with each other.
eg. my spiritual father has a masters degree in theology (from egypt) and does not get influenced much by the catholic writers such as augustine.
After the Arabs invaded in the 7th century, Copts became estranged from the Greek language, which also created a "void" in Coptic theological knowledge during the Middle Ages.
I think it is the decline of the Coptic language that was fatal to the Coptic culture and worship, but not so much the Greek.
This opinion is supported by the observation of St. Severus of Ashmonin, 10th century bishop, and was prophesized by St. Samuel the Confessor in the 7th century during the early stages of the arab invasion.
[quote author=mabsoota link=topic=13615.msg159408#msg159408 date=1346231776] i don't think there is much fighting; most of us are willing to accept there are some differences in focus, but the Bible studies i have been to have been places where questions and debate are encouraged, but people do not get annoyed with each other.
eg. my spiritual father has a masters degree in theology (from egypt) and does not get influenced much by the catholic writers such as augustine.
Well, that's good to hear. Although I think Blessed Augustine can be read and accepted to a certain extent among OO and EO alike. At least that's what Father Seraphim Rose believed and taught.
I have some concerns about this article that is most illustrated in Comment #6 above. Doesn't #6 above imply Copticism? Why is it looked down if one reads or references Anslem, Aquinas and Trent? Is there a competition between East vs. West theologians? If St Athanasius and St Cyril say the same exact thing as Anslem and Aquinas, would it automatically be wrong to quote Anslem and Aquinas? Shouldn't we care more about the content of references rather than the number of Latin references exceeding Coptic theologian references?
Doesn't comments like #6 above create divisions? Doesn't comment #6 engage in a Apollo vs. Paul type debate, divide Christ into and obscure the fact that we all should cling and identify with Christ, not Anslem vs. Athanasius. Aquinas vs. Cyril, East vs. West, Coptic vs. Latin, as St Paul warns us in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13?
Not just #6 above, but the entire article seems to promote ethnocentrism. I understand it was meant as a warning not to drift to foreign schools of theology. I also understand that the theology of St Athanasius, Cyril, Origen, the Cappadocian fathers are much more coherent and valuable than other fathers but only to a certain degree. I think this article took it beyond a simple warning into political bigotry disguised in theology.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13615.msg159450#msg159450 date=1346273464] Severian and all,
I have some concerns about this article that is most illustrated in Comment #6 above. Doesn't #6 above imply Copticism? Why is it looked down if one reads or references Anslem, Aquinas and Trent? Is there a competition between East vs. West theologians? If St Athanasius and St Cyril say the same exact thing as Anslem and Aquinas, would it automatically be wrong to quote Anslem and Aquinas? Shouldn't we care more about the content of references rather than the number of Latin references exceeding Coptic theologian references?
Doesn't comments like #6 above create divisions? Doesn't comment #6 engage in a Apollo vs. Paul type debate, divide Christ into and obscure the fact that we all should cling and identify with Christ, not Anslem vs. Athanasius. Aquinas vs. Cyril, East vs. West, Coptic vs. Latin, as St Paul warns us in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13?
Not just #6 above, but the entire article seems to promote ethnocentrism. I understand it was meant as a warning not to drift to foreign schools of theology. I also understand that the theology of St Athanasius, Cyril, Origen, the Cappadocian fathers are much more coherent and valuable than other fathers but only to a certain degree. I think this article took it beyond a simple warning into political bigotry disguised in theology. Do you read classical Arabic?
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13615.msg159455#msg159455 date=1346274774] No not really. I based my comments on the commentary you provided. Oh, OK. I think the author was trying to convey the point that we are often taught the teachings of Aquinas and Anselm, even though what they have to say a lot of times contradicts Cyrillian and Athanasian teaching. Like the concept of "infinite sin" which doesn't seem to have a Patristic basis.
If St Athanasius and St Cyril say the same exact thing as Anslem and Aquinas, would it automatically be wrong to quote Anslem and Aquinas? Shouldn't we care more about the content of references rather than the number of Latin references exceeding Coptic theologian references?
Of course it does matter. If they are really saying the same thing, then I do quote my Fathers.
Aquinas and Anselm are not my Fathers. They did not hand me down the faith.
This is a real issue. If I quote foreign teachers, then I assume that their teaching is ok. It is not just the quote I am referencing, which agrees with St Athanasius, but their thought is ok.
At least I need to quote first my Fathers and then say: "BTW such and such said the same thing"
Have you ever read 1 Corinthians 1:11-13? Let me put it another way. " For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, ... that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Athanasius,” or “I am of Cyril,” or “I am of Aquinas,” or “I am of Anslem.” or "I am of the Coptic Church". Is Christ divided? Was Athanasius crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of the Coptic Church?"
It is completely gratuitous to add "BTW such and such said the same thing." It divides Christ. It puts Coptic ethnocentrism before divine love "So that they may all be one, as You Father are in Me and I in You".
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13615.msg159475#msg159475 date=1346295904] Have you ever read 1 Corinthians 1:11-13? Let me put it another way. " For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, ... that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Athanasius,” or “I am of Cyril,” or “I am of Aquinas,” or “I am of Anslem.” or "I am of the Coptic Church". Is Christ divided? Was Athanasius crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of the Coptic Church?"
It is completely gratuitous to add "BTW such and such said the same thing." It divides Christ. It puts Coptic ethnocentrism before divine love "So that they may all be one, as You Father are in Me and I in You".
Our faith is not Roman Catholicism, our teachers are not Aquinas or Anselm. St Peter says: "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, ..."
We ought to know who are the Orthodox teachers and become their disciples.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13615.msg159481#msg159481 date=1346299985] [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13615.msg159475#msg159475 date=1346295904] Have you ever read 1 Corinthians 1:11-13? Let me put it another way. " For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, ... that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Athanasius,” or “I am of Cyril,” or “I am of Aquinas,” or “I am of Anslem.” or "I am of the Coptic Church". Is Christ divided? Was Athanasius crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of the Coptic Church?"
It is completely gratuitous to add "BTW such and such said the same thing." It divides Christ. It puts Coptic ethnocentrism before divine love "So that they may all be one, as You Father are in Me and I in You".
Our faith is not Roman Catholicism, our teachers are not Aquinas or Anselm. St Peter says: "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, ..." You assume anything and anyone who is not Coptic is "secretly bringing destructive heresies". St Peter says false prophets and false teachers will come. But you will know them by their fruit. The content of their words is the fruit. If their claims are heretic, it will bring destruction. If their claims have Truth, it will bring peace. It's not the other way around. It's not all claims by Teacher X are heretic and bring destruction and all claims by Coptic Teacher Y are Truth. This is ethnocentrism and racism. It is exactly what St Paul exhorted and cautioned against.
We ought to know who are the Orthodox teachers and become their disciples.
We ought to know what the Truth is, where Christ can be found in the Truth regardless of the teacher or messenger and become Christ's disciples through the maternal guidance and love of the Orthodox Church. When the man born blind was healed, the Pharisees claimed "We are Moses' disciples", refusing to recognize that God can be found outside Moses. It is the same when one follows the teacher(s) of God more than God.
Of course it does matter. If they are really saying the same thing, then I do quote my Fathers.
If they say the same thing, it matters very little who you quote. However, your inability to accept the fact that these people are quotable is absolute proof that you have divided Christ as a product of the idea of certain fathers. If they said the same thing, your refusal to quote or accept someone simply because they are "not your fathers" is a sad fact.
We ought to know who are the Orthodox teachers and become their disciples.
What is Orthodox to you? Orthodox is not a denomination, but it is a mode of thinking. It is a way of understanding the world around you, and a maintaining of proper theology. Orthodoxy does not restrict the truth that people make mistakes, and so, Anselm and Ambrose may have made mistakes, but they are Orthodox.
I rarely quote Coptic Fathers, but I use the fathers of the EO church to analyze my dogmas. My sources do not stop at St. Cyril, but continue through St. Maxemous the confessor all the way through St. John of Damascus. I take them as my fathers, and I do not restrict God to certain denomination.
You assume anything and anyone who is not Coptic is "secretly bringing destructive heresies".
These are your words not mine.
When it comes to matter of faith, the Fathers, accepted to in the Church, are to be quoted. We cannot use theologians after the Schism and quote them as an authoritative resource.
But you will know them by their fruit. The content of their words is the fruit.
Not necessarily.
People can lead a righteous life and do not even believe in Christ. This does not mean that I quote them on a matter of faith.
Same is true with the likes of Aquinas and Anselm.
If their claims have Truth, it will bring peace.
Not necessarily.
Orthodoxy is not based on claims of Truth but the Truth. We do not cherry pick claims and examine if it has truth. We go to the Orthodox fathers who have handed down Orthodoxy to us.
It's not all claims by Teacher X are heretic and bring destruction and all claims by Coptic Teacher Y are Truth.
Why would I go to foreign teachers who do not have the same faith I am delivered to learn my faith. This is Absurd.
Writings that were attributed to Origen were burned because his teachings were not Orthodox.
Arius, Nestor, ... etc were condemned and their writings were banned from the Church. Why? Because, they were heretics and their teachings were not Orthodox.
I agree that not all the writings by the non Orthodox are non Orthodox. But who will discern which claims are Orthodox and which are not?
I rarely quote Coptic Fathers, but I use the fathers of the EO church to analyze my dogmas. My sources do not stop at St. Cyril, but continue through St. Maxemous the confessor all the way through St. John of Damascus. I take them as my fathers, and I do not restrict God to certain denomination.
With all due respect, that is why you and those who follow your mode of thinking, err in matters of faith.
We ought to know what the Truth is, where Christ can be found in the Truth regardless of the teacher or messenger and become Christ's disciples through the maternal guidance and love of the Orthodox Church.
The Truth can Only be found through a disciple of the Truth; our Orthodox fathers. Our faith is preserved within our Fathers' teachings not those who left the Church.
I rarely quote Coptic Fathers, but I use the fathers of the EO church to analyze my dogmas. My sources do not stop at St. Cyril, but continue through St. Maxemous the confessor all the way through St. John of Damascus. I take them as my fathers, and I do not restrict God to certain denomination.
With all due respect, that is why you and those who follow your mode of thinking, err in matters of faith.
[Deleted again]
I'm going to fly by. I have not erred in matters of the faith except that I repent afterwards. I am not heretic/heterodox. I am 100% Orthodox in my theology. As for you...
[quote author=JG link=topic=13615.msg159504#msg159504 date=1346426493] [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=13615.msg159503#msg159503 date=1346425114] Anselm and Ambrose may have made mistakes, but they are Orthodox.
Anselm? As in the 11th-12th Century Roman Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury? He was Orthodox? Seriously?
JG,
I am not claiming he is Orthodox. I understand that he has incorrect teachings. What I am saying is that when he agrees with the Fathers, there is no reason to not quote him. He is Orthodox insofar as his teachings measure up with the acclaimed Orthodox fathers.
I rarely quote Coptic Fathers, but I use the fathers of the EO church to analyze my dogmas. My sources do not stop at St. Cyril, but continue through St. Maxemous the confessor all the way through St. John of Damascus. I take them as my fathers, and I do not restrict God to certain denomination.
With all due respect, that is why you and those who follow your mode of thinking, err in matters of faith.
[Deleted again]
I'm going to fly by. I have not erred in matters of the faith except that I repent afterwards. I am not heretic/heterodox. I am 100% Orthodox in my theology. As for you...
ReturnOrthodoxy
What we learn from our fathers like St Athanasius, St Cyril and St Dioscorus along with others is that they never deviate from Holy Tradition and the faith that was handed down to them. They became disciples of their teachers and held the doctrines they were delivered with all honesty.
This is why we need to become disciples of those who handed down the faith not from foreign teachers like you suggest.
I am suggesting that when the Fathers don't conflict with Sts. Athanasius, Cyril, etc. then we can certainly quote them. Remember, that these saints are mutually accepted, so even the Eastern church will agree with you. Still, when they do not contradict (which they rarely do), then they are authoritative. Just like our Fathers cannot contradict St. Athanasius.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=13615.msg159511#msg159511 date=1346430230] I am suggesting that when the Fathers don't conflict with Sts. Athanasius, Cyril, etc. then we can certainly quote them. Remember, that these saints are mutually accepted, so even the Eastern church will agree with you. Still, when they do not contradict (which they rarely do), then they are authoritative. Just like our Fathers cannot contradict St. Athanasius.
ReturnOrthodoxy
This is what I suggested in post #11 that I first quote my Fathers then quote the other theologians.
I am not claiming he is Orthodox. I understand that he has incorrect teachings. What I am saying is that when he agrees with the Fathers, there is no reason to not quote him. He is Orthodox insofar as his teachings measure up with the acclaimed Orthodox fathers.
I hope that made sense.
ReturnOrthodoxy
Dear RO,
I understand what you are saying but would strongly suggest caution in any case when quoting matters of doctrine from any non-Orthodox source. This is because even when you think they are stating the same thing as one of our Fathers, you do not know if their train of thought or reasons for their arguments are correct doctrine.
Just because an Orthodox Father says Christ died for us and Anselm says the same thing does not mean they arrived at this conclusion in the same way.
If there is an Orthodox Father to quote, its much safer to accept their terminology and reasoning rather than to try to explain our beliefs through potentially foreign arguments.
We ought to know what the Truth is, where Christ can be found in the Truth regardless of the teacher or messenger and become Christ's disciples through the maternal guidance and love of the Orthodox Church.
There cannot be any maternal guidance of the Orthodox Church when Anselm or any other heretic is our paternal teacher.
It has to come from the top. It heavily depends on the next patriarch, his views, and what he is willing to do with many of the Bishops today who follow this sort of theology.
[quote author=JG link=topic=13615.msg159513#msg159513 date=1346432940] I understand what you are saying but would strongly suggest caution in any case when quoting matters of doctrine from any non-Orthodox source. This is because even when you think they are stating the same thing as one of our Fathers, you do not know if their train of thought or reasons for their arguments are correct doctrine.
Just because an Orthodox Father says Christ died for us and Anselm says the same thing does not mean they arrived at this conclusion in the same way. JG, I understand why you caution against using any non-Orthodox source. At face value of logic, a non-Orthodox source is by definition heterdox, even if they reach the same conclusion. However, the Bible seems to say something differently.
Jesus already explicitly told us who belongs to his family and who does not. When Jesus was accused of having an unclean spirit and his own physical family said "He is out of his mind"(Mark 3:21), He didn't say "I disown my physical family for saying this." He didn't continue to say "Rather any Jew who believes in my name is my brother, sister and mother." He didn't say, "Anyone who is a Pharisee cannot be my brother or my disciple." (Recall Joseph and Nicodemus). The only requirement that qualifies a person into God's family is the desire to do God's will. "Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” Mark 3:35
Secondly, in Mark 9, Jesus again explicitly address people who are not in his direct family, people who don't belong to the disciples, who perform miracles in Christ's name. I think it pertains to the conversation quite importantly. The disciples had the same ethnocentric mentality that says "Only we belong to Christ. Everyone else is an enemy of God." Of course there are graduated degrees in this school of thought. Some will says, "Only we belong to Christ. Everyone else is outside (a schismatic). Some will say, "Only we belong to Christ. Everyone else needs to be avoided." And Christ says, "Whoever is NOT against us IS for us." Why? Look at the story in Mark 9 38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” 39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us."
Herein is the second qualification: Whoever does anything in Christ's name is for Christ and he is not our enemy or even a second class person, some sort of "not good enough" Christian father.
If Anslem or any other non-Orthodox father attacked Christ then that makes him a heretic to avoid at all costs. But if someone is just not of our Coptic "tribe", who may have arrived at an Orthodox theology by different means, it doesn't make him a heretic. Arius attacked Christ and attacked the Church. He is a heretic. Officially. Origen never attacked Christ in his theology. He isn't even officially condemned by the Coptic Church. He is probably the most quoted patristic father after Athanasius and Cappadocean fathers, even from among the ancient fathers. Another good example is Evagrius Ponticus.
If there is an Orthodox Father to quote, its much safer to accept their terminology and reasoning rather than to try to explain our beliefs through potentially foreign arguments.
If two fathers reach the same Orthodox theological conclusion, then both fathers are Orthodox for that one item of faith. If one or both do not attack Christ to get to that conclusion, then they are BOTH for us, not against us. At the moment, they are BOTH Orthodox. If you identify with one father over the other, for the sole reason of Coptic affiliation, we are violating the admonition of St Paul in 1 Corinthians 1.
The constant Coptic ethnocentrism and Coptic racism found in these threads is the primary reasons there are very few converts in the Coptic Church in general and here in particular. They is very little attempt at missionary work. There is very little desire for converts to stay in the Orthodox church (unlike the Good Shepherd who left 99 sheep to find the one lost sheep). There is very little expression of love and solidarity with people who are ethnically different. Add this all together and you end up with Christ divided.
Comments
[b]
1. The theology of the Fathers such as "Origen, St. Didymus, and St. Cyril"... "did not at all depart from the Holy Scriptures... it was their chief and primary source."
2. The Patristic era ended after the 5th century, which was the golden age. After this, there was either political or theological decline for all Christians.
3. In the west, Scholasticism developed in cathedrals and monasteries due to the following factors:
a) Use of Latin and lack of knowledge of Greek in the West.
b) The Westerner's use of reason and logic in determining dogma.
c) The impact of Arab-Muslim texts translated into Latin, such as Averroes and Avicenna.
4. Thus Scholasticism represents a departure from the biblically-centered Patristic theology.
5. A discussion of Anselm, Aquinas, and the Council of Trent.
6. So what does this have to do with Orthodox Copts? Ignorance about this history has led to the introduction of Scholastic ideas among Copts and among all the Orthodox-- thus we hear the teachings of Anselm, Aquinas, and the Council of Trent in modern Arabic books more than the teachings of Athanasius and Cyrill.
7. A discussion of major changes in Catholic theology, due to the re-discovery of Patristic writers in the 20th century, regarding the nature of the Church, the liturgy, the authority of the Pope, and the role of the laity, following Vatican II.
8. Quotes Florovsky on the introduction of Scholastic thought into the Orthodox Church and the question of "Western Captivity."
9. After the Arabs invaded in the 7th century, Copts became estranged from the Greek language, which also created a "void" in Coptic theological knowledge during the Middle Ages.
10. In modern times, faced with Catholic and Protestant missionaries, Copts relied on theological works that were available in Arabic, all of which relied on Scholastic theology. (He then makes a list of modern Coptic books that fell under such influence.)
11. Those patristic translations into Arabic that were made during the beginning of the 20th century, did not receive a wide audience.
12. However, in the 2nd half of the 20th century, there was a call to return to patristic sources. This was reacted against by those who had become accustomed to Scholastic theology.
13. For the past 30 years there have been two schools of theology among the Copts, which instead of leading to productive dialogue has led to partisanship, infighting, and mutual accusations of heresy.
14. A call for more serious study into the authentic heritage of the Coptic Church.
[url=http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,46316.msg789689.html#msg789689]Source
eg. my spiritual father has a masters degree in theology (from egypt) and does not get influenced much by the catholic writers such as augustine.
This opinion is supported by the observation of St. Severus of Ashmonin, 10th century bishop, and was prophesized by St. Samuel the Confessor in the 7th century during the early stages of the arab invasion.
i don't think there is much fighting; most of us are willing to accept there are some differences in focus, but the Bible studies i have been to have been places where questions and debate are encouraged, but people do not get annoyed with each other.
eg. my spiritual father has a masters degree in theology (from egypt) and does not get influenced much by the catholic writers such as augustine.
Well, that's good to hear. Although I think Blessed Augustine can be read and accepted to a certain extent among OO and EO alike. At least that's what Father Seraphim Rose believed and taught.
I have some concerns about this article that is most illustrated in Comment #6 above. Doesn't #6 above imply Copticism? Why is it looked down if one reads or references Anslem, Aquinas and Trent? Is there a competition between East vs. West theologians? If St Athanasius and St Cyril say the same exact thing as Anslem and Aquinas, would it automatically be wrong to quote Anslem and Aquinas? Shouldn't we care more about the content of references rather than the number of Latin references exceeding Coptic theologian references?
Doesn't comments like #6 above create divisions? Doesn't comment #6 engage in a Apollo vs. Paul type debate, divide Christ into and obscure the fact that we all should cling and identify with Christ, not Anslem vs. Athanasius. Aquinas vs. Cyril, East vs. West, Coptic vs. Latin, as St Paul warns us in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13?
Not just #6 above, but the entire article seems to promote ethnocentrism. I understand it was meant as a warning not to drift to foreign schools of theology. I also understand that the theology of St Athanasius, Cyril, Origen, the Cappadocian fathers are much more coherent and valuable than other fathers but only to a certain degree. I think this article took it beyond a simple warning into political bigotry disguised in theology.
Severian and all,
I have some concerns about this article that is most illustrated in Comment #6 above. Doesn't #6 above imply Copticism? Why is it looked down if one reads or references Anslem, Aquinas and Trent? Is there a competition between East vs. West theologians? If St Athanasius and St Cyril say the same exact thing as Anslem and Aquinas, would it automatically be wrong to quote Anslem and Aquinas? Shouldn't we care more about the content of references rather than the number of Latin references exceeding Coptic theologian references?
Doesn't comments like #6 above create divisions? Doesn't comment #6 engage in a Apollo vs. Paul type debate, divide Christ into and obscure the fact that we all should cling and identify with Christ, not Anslem vs. Athanasius. Aquinas vs. Cyril, East vs. West, Coptic vs. Latin, as St Paul warns us in 1 Corinthians 1:12-13?
Not just #6 above, but the entire article seems to promote ethnocentrism. I understand it was meant as a warning not to drift to foreign schools of theology. I also understand that the theology of St Athanasius, Cyril, Origen, the Cappadocian fathers are much more coherent and valuable than other fathers but only to a certain degree. I think this article took it beyond a simple warning into political bigotry disguised in theology.
Do you read classical Arabic?
No not really. I based my comments on the commentary you provided.
Oh, OK. I think the author was trying to convey the point that we are often taught the teachings of Aquinas and Anselm, even though what they have to say a lot of times contradicts Cyrillian and Athanasian teaching. Like the concept of "infinite sin" which doesn't seem to have a Patristic basis.
Aquinas and Anselm are not my Fathers. They did not hand me down the faith.
This is a real issue. If I quote foreign teachers, then I assume that their teaching is ok. It is not just the quote I am referencing, which agrees with St Athanasius, but their thought is ok.
At least I need to quote first my Fathers and then say: "BTW such and such said the same thing"
Let me put it another way.
" For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, ... that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Athanasius,” or “I am of Cyril,” or “I am of Aquinas,” or “I am of Anslem.” or "I am of the Coptic Church". Is Christ divided? Was Athanasius crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of the Coptic Church?"
It is completely gratuitous to add "BTW such and such said the same thing." It divides Christ. It puts Coptic ethnocentrism before divine love "So that they may all be one, as You Father are in Me and I in You".
Have you ever read 1 Corinthians 1:11-13?
Let me put it another way.
" For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, ... that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Athanasius,” or “I am of Cyril,” or “I am of Aquinas,” or “I am of Anslem.” or "I am of the Coptic Church". Is Christ divided? Was Athanasius crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of the Coptic Church?"
It is completely gratuitous to add "BTW such and such said the same thing." It divides Christ. It puts Coptic ethnocentrism before divine love "So that they may all be one, as You Father are in Me and I in You".
Our faith is not Roman Catholicism, our teachers are not Aquinas or Anselm. St Peter says: "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, ..."
We ought to know who are the Orthodox teachers and become their disciples.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13615.msg159475#msg159475 date=1346295904]
Have you ever read 1 Corinthians 1:11-13?
Let me put it another way.
" For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, ... that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Athanasius,” or “I am of Cyril,” or “I am of Aquinas,” or “I am of Anslem.” or "I am of the Coptic Church". Is Christ divided? Was Athanasius crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of the Coptic Church?"
It is completely gratuitous to add "BTW such and such said the same thing." It divides Christ. It puts Coptic ethnocentrism before divine love "So that they may all be one, as You Father are in Me and I in You".
Our faith is not Roman Catholicism, our teachers are not Aquinas or Anselm. St Peter says: "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, ..."
You assume anything and anyone who is not Coptic is "secretly bringing destructive heresies". St Peter says false prophets and false teachers will come. But you will know them by their fruit. The content of their words is the fruit. If their claims are heretic, it will bring destruction. If their claims have Truth, it will bring peace. It's not the other way around. It's not all claims by Teacher X are heretic and bring destruction and all claims by Coptic Teacher Y are Truth. This is ethnocentrism and racism. It is exactly what St Paul exhorted and cautioned against. We ought to know what the Truth is, where Christ can be found in the Truth regardless of the teacher or messenger and become Christ's disciples through the maternal guidance and love of the Orthodox Church. When the man born blind was healed, the Pharisees claimed "We are Moses' disciples", refusing to recognize that God can be found outside Moses. It is the same when one follows the teacher(s) of God more than God.
I rarely quote Coptic Fathers, but I use the fathers of the EO church to analyze my dogmas. My sources do not stop at St. Cyril, but continue through St. Maxemous the confessor all the way through St. John of Damascus. I take them as my fathers, and I do not restrict God to certain denomination.
ReturnOrthodoxy
Anselm and Ambrose may have made mistakes, but they are Orthodox.
Anselm? As in the 11th-12th Century Roman Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury? He was Orthodox? Seriously?
When it comes to matter of faith, the Fathers, accepted to in the Church, are to be quoted. We cannot use theologians after the Schism and quote them as an authoritative resource. Not necessarily.
People can lead a righteous life and do not even believe in Christ. This does not mean that I quote them on a matter of faith.
Same is true with the likes of Aquinas and Anselm. Not necessarily.
Orthodoxy is not based on claims of Truth but the Truth. We do not cherry pick claims and examine if it has truth. We go to the Orthodox fathers who have handed down Orthodoxy to us. Why would I go to foreign teachers who do not have the same faith I am delivered to learn my faith. This is Absurd.
Writings that were attributed to Origen were burned because his teachings were not Orthodox.
Arius, Nestor, ... etc were condemned and their writings were banned from the Church. Why? Because, they were heretics and their teachings were not Orthodox.
I agree that not all the writings by the non Orthodox are non Orthodox. But who will discern which claims are Orthodox and which are not?
[Deleted again]
I'm going to fly by. I have not erred in matters of the faith except that I repent afterwards. I am not heretic/heterodox. I am 100% Orthodox in my theology. As for you...
ReturnOrthodoxy
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=13615.msg159503#msg159503 date=1346425114]
Anselm and Ambrose may have made mistakes, but they are Orthodox.
Anselm? As in the 11th-12th Century Roman Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury? He was Orthodox? Seriously?
JG,
I am not claiming he is Orthodox. I understand that he has incorrect teachings. What I am saying is that when he agrees with the Fathers, there is no reason to not quote him. He is Orthodox insofar as his teachings measure up with the acclaimed Orthodox fathers.
I hope that made sense.
ReturnOrthodoxy
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13615.msg159506#msg159506 date=1346426998] With all due respect, that is why you and those who follow your mode of thinking, err in matters of faith.
[Deleted again]
I'm going to fly by. I have not erred in matters of the faith except that I repent afterwards. I am not heretic/heterodox. I am 100% Orthodox in my theology. As for you...
ReturnOrthodoxy
What we learn from our fathers like St Athanasius, St Cyril and St Dioscorus along with others is that they never deviate from Holy Tradition and the faith that was handed down to them. They became disciples of their teachers and held the doctrines they were delivered with all honesty.
This is why we need to become disciples of those who handed down the faith not from foreign teachers like you suggest.
ReturnOrthodoxy
I am suggesting that when the Fathers don't conflict with Sts. Athanasius, Cyril, etc. then we can certainly quote them. Remember, that these saints are mutually accepted, so even the Eastern church will agree with you. Still, when they do not contradict (which they rarely do), then they are authoritative. Just like our Fathers cannot contradict St. Athanasius.
ReturnOrthodoxy
This is what I suggested in post #11 that I first quote my Fathers then quote the other theologians.
JG,
I am not claiming he is Orthodox. I understand that he has incorrect teachings. What I am saying is that when he agrees with the Fathers, there is no reason to not quote him. He is Orthodox insofar as his teachings measure up with the acclaimed Orthodox fathers.
I hope that made sense.
ReturnOrthodoxy
Dear RO,
I understand what you are saying but would strongly suggest caution in any case when quoting matters of doctrine from any non-Orthodox source. This is because even when you think they are stating the same thing as one of our Fathers, you do not know if their train of thought or reasons for their arguments are correct doctrine.
Just because an Orthodox Father says Christ died for us and Anselm says the same thing does not mean they arrived at this conclusion in the same way.
If there is an Orthodox Father to quote, its much safer to accept their terminology and reasoning rather than to try to explain our beliefs through potentially foreign arguments.
Peace,
Joe
ReturnOrthodoxy
I understand what you are saying but would strongly suggest caution in any case when quoting matters of doctrine from any non-Orthodox source. This is because even when you think they are stating the same thing as one of our Fathers, you do not know if their train of thought or reasons for their arguments are correct doctrine.
Just because an Orthodox Father says Christ died for us and Anselm says the same thing does not mean they arrived at this conclusion in the same way.
JG, I understand why you caution against using any non-Orthodox source. At face value of logic, a non-Orthodox source is by definition heterdox, even if they reach the same conclusion. However, the Bible seems to say something differently.
Jesus already explicitly told us who belongs to his family and who does not. When Jesus was accused of having an unclean spirit and his own physical family said "He is out of his mind"(Mark 3:21), He didn't say "I disown my physical family for saying this." He didn't continue to say "Rather any Jew who believes in my name is my brother, sister and mother." He didn't say, "Anyone who is a Pharisee cannot be my brother or my disciple." (Recall Joseph and Nicodemus). The only requirement that qualifies a person into God's family is the desire to do God's will. "Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.” Mark 3:35
Secondly, in Mark 9, Jesus again explicitly address people who are not in his direct family, people who don't belong to the disciples, who perform miracles in Christ's name. I think it pertains to the conversation quite importantly. The disciples had the same ethnocentric mentality that says "Only we belong to Christ. Everyone else is an enemy of God." Of course there are graduated degrees in this school of thought. Some will says, "Only we belong to Christ. Everyone else is outside (a schismatic). Some will say, "Only we belong to Christ. Everyone else needs to be avoided." And Christ says, "Whoever is NOT against us IS for us." Why? Look at the story in Mark 9
38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” 39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us."
Herein is the second qualification: Whoever does anything in Christ's name is for Christ and he is not our enemy or even a second class person, some sort of "not good enough" Christian father.
If Anslem or any other non-Orthodox father attacked Christ then that makes him a heretic to avoid at all costs. But if someone is just not of our Coptic "tribe", who may have arrived at an Orthodox theology by different means, it doesn't make him a heretic. Arius attacked Christ and attacked the Church. He is a heretic. Officially. Origen never attacked Christ in his theology. He isn't even officially condemned by the Coptic Church. He is probably the most quoted patristic father after Athanasius and Cappadocean fathers, even from among the ancient fathers. Another good example is Evagrius Ponticus. If two fathers reach the same Orthodox theological conclusion, then both fathers are Orthodox for that one item of faith. If one or both do not attack Christ to get to that conclusion, then they are BOTH for us, not against us. At the moment, they are BOTH Orthodox. If you identify with one father over the other, for the sole reason of Coptic affiliation, we are violating the admonition of St Paul in 1 Corinthians 1.
The constant Coptic ethnocentrism and Coptic racism found in these threads is the primary reasons there are very few converts in the Coptic Church in general and here in particular. They is very little attempt at missionary work. There is very little desire for converts to stay in the Orthodox church (unlike the Good Shepherd who left 99 sheep to find the one lost sheep). There is very little expression of love and solidarity with people who are ethnically different. Add this all together and you end up with Christ divided.