So the wife is converting to Orthodoxy

By the same token, I've never heard any claims that the Oriental Orthodox Bishops don't have legitimate succession.

Click to expand...

Try the last four ecumenical councils of the Church, beginning with Chalcedon in 451, which anathematized the leaders of the Monophysite heresy and deposed them from their bishoprics.

Orthodox bishops were installed to replace those who fell to Monophysitism.

Monophysites later began their own parallel, heretical "church," complete with its own illicit set of bishops. Their succession was dependent upon heretical bishops who had been anathematized, deposed, and excommunicated by the Church.

It was and is invalid.

The term "Oriental Orthodox" is a misnomer. One cannot be Orthodox and reject any of the seven ecumenical councils of the Church or any dogmatic part of any of them.

The correct terms are Non-Chalcedonians or Anti-Chalcedonians.

The fact that they reject the last four ecumenical Church councils makes them heterodox, not Orthodox.

What about the Latin Church?

Hoonbaba said:

So is this to say Catholics are not in the Church and therefore damned??

-Jason

Click to expand...

Outside the Church =/= damned.

Let me reiterate that no one here believes that non-Orthodox are necessarily damned, nor does anyone here believe that Orthodox are necessarily saved.

The rest is all a matter of semantics.

The way I see it is no matter how close we are in beliefs to another communion (i.e. the Oriental Orthodox are practically identical), the Church is defined not by how many doctrines on a list it has, but by its living Eucharistic communion. So anyone not part of that union is outside the Church, but that does NOT mean that they are not saved, or that God does not love them. God loves all, and saves whom He will. And grace works in all the world, in all peoples and creeds.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

Maximus said:

The term "Oriental Orthodox" is a misnomer. One cannot be Orthodox and reject any of the seven ecumenical councils of the Church or any dogmatic part of any of them.

The correct terms are Non-Chalcedonians or Anti-Chalcedonians.

The fact that they reject the last four ecumenical Church councils makes them heterodox, not Orthodox.

Click to expand...

I've got no delusions about where correct teaching is to be found, but the kind of militant vigilance that the above statement conveys says that there is no difference between non-Chalcedonians and Lutherans (or Southern Baptists,for that matter). To the extent that non-Chalcedonians espouse correct doctrine (and I don't believe that their position WRT the two natures of Christ is anything other than a linguisitic and semantic misunderstanding) and worship correctly, they are Orthodox. We're Orthodox to the extent that we practice and believe rightly. [To modify after reading Marjorie's post] This doesn't imply communion; there are enough questions that need to be suffiently and comprehensivly ironed out to ensure that we protect the most precious of gifts, the Eucharist.[/modification]

Besides which, the term "Oriental Orthodox" is a widely used term within canonical Orthodoxy, and the (personal?) campaign to find fault with it smacks of an elitism that is untenable, IMHO. I sincerely apologize if I have wrongly apprehended your purpose or caused your anger. Forgive me, a sinner.

For reference:

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In recent times intense dialogue has been undertaken by the Orthodox and Oriental churches to ascertain prospects for reunion. While in general principle it is agreed that the doctrine of Christ as confessed by the Oriental churches is indeed Orthodox, definitive steps to restore communion have yet to be undertaken.

Click to expand...

[/font]This suggestion presupposes that what separates Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism, the Reformed churches and non‑Chalcedonian churches are not essential differences in matters of faith and doctrine since "our holy Orthodox Church will in no way fail to apply akriveia (exactness) to those articles of faith and sources of grace which must be upheld, yet she will not neglect to employ oikonomia whenever possible in local contacts with those outside her ‑ provided always that they believe in God adored in Trinity and the basic tenets of the Orthodox faith which follow from this, remaining always within the framework of the teaching of the ancient Church, one and indivisible".

Click to expand...

(The above is a description of Towards the Great Council: Introductory Reports of the Interorthodox Commission in Preparation for the Next Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church, London. SPCK, 1972, pp.3954.
It is important to note that, following the release of this document, debate and controversy caused the language about economia to be taken out of the document, but left the language about faith and doctrine.)

mbkndomer said:

2. What is the purpose of the iconostasis?

Click to expand...

The iconostasis corresponds to the altar rail in the West. In British Isles many pre Reformation era Catholic and Anglican churches had rood screens separating the nave from the altar area. They looked like the iconostasis without the icons.

(add www) suffolkchurches.co.uk/zrood.htm
(add www) allsaintseastchurch.info/rood.html

I don't have enough posts to include links yet

Monica

PS: It is so good to read about how supportive you are of your wife's decision.

jkotinek said:

I've got to agree with The Virginian.

I've never heard anything from my priest or the things that I've read that supports a view that the Latin succession is valid, which would make the Pope the legitimate Bishop of Rome. By the same token, I've never heard any claims that the Oriental Orthodox Bishops don't have legitimate succession.

I didn't take from The Virginian's post that the Pope "has a place in the Orthodox Church," rather, that the Church (what he referenced that Rome is a part of) belongs to Christ, but we cannot share Communion with them because their theology has fallen into error.

Click to expand...

Thats how i took Virginian's post regarding the Bishop of Rome too, although I can see how it could be misunderstood. I suppose I am familiar with Virginian enough to know that he doesn't hold a wishy-washy view regrding the Schism and the visible bounds of the Church