Coptica v. 16 2017

96

by John McGuckin, Andrew Louth, Norman Russell, Metropolitan Mor Polycarpus Aydin, Baby Varghese, and V.C. Samuel (especially his “Further Studies in the Christology of Severus of Antioch,” in part IV). Although largely harmonious, not all voices in this collection are in concert. One may point to Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev’s brief contribution (pgs. 237-40), which is extremely critical, even suspicious of the Christology of Severus of Antioch. Notably, any distrust of Patriarch Severus can be effectively remedied from within the same volume, where he emerges as a significant, overarching figure. He is quoted throughout the volume, and five entries (two by pro-Chalcedonians) are specifically focused on the orthodoxy of his theology and the manner in which it intersects with the thought of Cyril of Alexandria. In general, the increase in Severian studies is an important aspect of contemporary research, and that development is well demonstrated in this volume. Indirectly, however, this aspect underscores one of the drawbacks of the publication: the lack of a comprehensive index. Such an index would have facilitated tracing discussions of various individuals and themes, such as Severus’s Christology, across such a lengthy volume. Another dissonant note is struck by the second chapter presented by Prof. G.D. Martzelos (pgs. 147-159), which, while helpful on several fronts, is problematic in its language and outlook. At the conclusion of the chapter, one finds a brief list of conditions for the admittance of the Oriental Orthodox “back into the Orthodox Church.” Martzelos is not unique here. One can easily find anti-Chalcedonian authors writing from that same vantage point, which situates one’s own confession or jurisdiction at the heart of Orthodoxy while designating all others as outliers, schismatics, or even heretics. Nonetheless, where Chalcedon is concerned, who is in, who is out, and who constitutes the “Orthodox” are questions that have led nowhere over the past 1500+ years. Significantly, in a roundabout manner, the chapter demonstrates one of the persistent ambiguities of Orthodox ecumenism: Is the task to discover whether or not each family has remained faithful in its orthodox witness (along with Apostolic succession), or is it to dictate a means for one faction or the other to reunite with the “real” Orthodox? These two questions (and perspectives) are mutually exclusive and must not be conflated. Recognition of mutual orthodoxy in spite of differing theological terminology and historical disputes renders such questions as, who deviated from orthodoxy and how can one return to the mother church, null and void. Reciprocally, the absence of orthodoxy (and legitimate Apostolic Succession) would constitute a clear break with what all Orthodox deem essential. In that case, the discussion would not be about providing a means or a path toward reunion or the mechanisms for the mutual lifting of anathemas, but rather the practical means for mass baptisms and mass re-ordinations of clerics. Another aspect that emerges from (or is perhaps reflected in) the volume is what may be glossed as the nature of the uneven “playing field.” Part II,