Ethiopian Orthodox church

Nov 5, 2010
266
18
California
✟7,982.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
When non-Chalcedonians are allowed to go to communion in Orthodox churches, the understanding is supposed to be that they have converted to Orthodoxy, accept Chalcedon, and won't go back to a non-Chalcedonian church if one is nearby.

True. When I was in the OCA, this is primarily how my priest treated the matter. He recognized the OO as correct in their doctrine, but nonetheless schismatic, and that to communion they would have to accept the Seven Councils and agree not to again commune in an OO church.
 
Upvote 0
Nov 5, 2010
266
18
California
✟7,982.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I also really thought that the understandings of the OOC about the two natures of Christ

:confused:

The OOC understanding about "the two natures of Christ" is that there are no two natures of Christ.
 
Upvote 0
Nov 5, 2010
266
18
California
✟7,982.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Well, according to the OCA, Dioscorus was condemned a heretic in Chalcedon. All my quotes are from the OCA website (OCA - Lives of all saints commemorated on this day)...

For one thing, they identify him as the Patriarch of Constantinople!

For another, they do identify him as a heretic, but they do not say that his condemnation at Chalcedon involved him being condemned as a heretic.

So that link doesn't really prove anything. If anything it looks rather silly.

he followed Eutyches who "said that the Divine nature in Christ had fully swallowed up and absorbed His human nature.

Please show me what Saint Dioscorus said that leads you to believe that he taught that the divinity of Christ swallowed up His humanity.

This false teaching undermined the very basis of the Church's teaching about the salvation and redemption of humankind [trans. note: Since "what is not assumed is not saved", if Christ has only a Divine nature and not a human nature, then the salvation of humankind, and even the Incarnation of Christ would be rendered heretically docetic]

I agree that this teaching is false. And so does the OOC, given that we condemned Eutychianism at the Third Council of Ephesus in 475.
 
Upvote 0

musicluvr83

Regular Member
Mar 6, 2010
573
19
✟8,320.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
For one thing, they identify him as the Patriarch of Constantinople!

Yeah...a Patriarch who was deposed 'cause he was in heresy, among the other things previously stated by not just me. And he isn't a saint...he was a deposed arch-heretic. What part of the word "heretic" do you not understand. He was not personally mentioned in Chalcedon - the heresy started by Eutachys was condemned (a heresy which Dioscorus believed and followed). This, in turn (& quite obviously), condemned him and anyone else who follows the heresy. The condemnation didn't (& doesn't) just go for Eutyches.

If you're looking for him (himself - specifically by name) being condemned a heretic, it was in 450. But as I said previously, he was condemned right along with everyone else who follows Eutyches heresy in 475.
 
Upvote 0

Joshua G.

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2009
3,288
419
U.S.A.
✟5,328.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Yes, historically we have accused you of having compromised with Theodoreanism (the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia) at the Council of Chalcedon, and personally I still uphold this teaching.



No, this is not the logical conclusion. True, no party would be heretical. But what really is the core condition of the schism? It is our (the OO) rejection of the Council of Chalcedon. If we had not rejected it then we still would have been one. And if both sides were in fact orthodox, primarily we would be the side in the wrong for having rejected your definition of faith. Even if both parties were orthodox all along, we would still technically be schismatics, and you the Church.

So we condemned your definition first and you rejected ours. But since we had the magic gavel then you are the one in schism. But if you had the gavel then we would be in schism.

I am sure there is a more perfect logic to your argument than my position. However, I think in the end, it all proves to be silly because now we insist on seeing who was in schism.

Irony on- So, if we were to come together through reconciliation, it would be absolutely essential that you say sorry for having rejected what our council said. But we're cool in having implicitly included you among the list of heretical groups.

I guess you're right. It's essential we know where to point the blame. That is really key to all of this.

Irony off- there comes a point where we need to get real say "look, what are we really still arguing about? Do you accept this? Do we accept you? Can we act like brothers now? good."

Josh
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sphinx777
Upvote 0

Christos Anesti

Junior Member
Oct 25, 2009
3,487
333
Michigan
✟20,114.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Yes, historically we have accused you of having compromised with Theodoreanism (the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia) at the Council of Chalcedon, and personally I still uphold this teaching.
Chalcedon was able to synthesize what was legitmate in both the Alexandrian and Antiochian christological traditions. I see that as great evidence of its catholic perspective. I think we owe a lot to the Patriarchate of Rome as a moderating influence in the debate too. I wouldn't be surprised if despite anathematizing Theodore that he and Diodore didn't have at least some influence in the thought process of the Fathers of Chalcedon. Then again so did St Cyril of Alexandria. I guess we get the best of both worlds and reject some the more extreme "exaggerations" found on both sides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joshua G.
Upvote 0

Joshua G.

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2009
3,288
419
U.S.A.
✟5,328.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Yes, historically we have accused you of having compromised with Theodoreanism (the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia) at the Council of Chalcedon, and personally I still uphold this teaching.



No, this is not the logical conclusion. True, no party would be heretical. But what really is the core condition of the schism? It is our (the OO) rejection of the Council of Chalcedon. If we had not rejected it then we still would have been one. And if both sides were in fact orthodox, primarily we would be the side in the wrong for having rejected your definition of faith. Even if both parties were orthodox all along, we would still technically be schismatics, and you the Church.

So we condemned your definition first and you rejected ours. But since we had the magic gavel then you are the one in schism. But if you had the gavel then we would be in schism.

I am sure there is a more perfect logic to your argument than my position. However, I think in the end, it all proves to be silly because now we insist on seeing who was in schism.

So, if we were to come together through reconciliation, it would be absolutely essential that you say sorry for having rejected what our council said. But we're cool in having implicitly included you among the list of heretical groups.

I guess you're right. It's essential we know where to point the blame. That is really key to all of this.

Irony off- there comes a point where we need to take our heads out of our ---s and say "look, what are we really still arguing about? Do you accept this? Do we accept you? Can we act like brothers now? good."

Josh

By the way, I wanted to add to my little rant (that I still stand behind, at least in content, lol) that, of course, we would only need to do the bolded part if indeed we come to the point where we realize that we never truly disagreed in the past but rather misunderstood each other, rightly condemning heresies that neither of us actually stood for.

However, in my mind, and more importantly in the minds of the EO and OO Churches, this is not a foregone conclusion as of yet. So, I do not want my words to be mistaken for a call to unity in haste or at all costs. I would not, for example, support unity with Catholics tomorrow, even though it would feel good, for there are still issues that are not resolved.

If tomorrow our Churches (EO and OO) decided that indeed we are one and open up to intercommunion (and therefore recognize each other as One Church), this would not be to my chagrin and I would gladly accept this without a second thought or doubt in the world. However, we have not arrived at that point and that very well may be, from a theological pov, the right course to take. As I said earlier, I don't pretend to be an expert.

Interestingly, I totally know how Mr. Dombrowski sees me and my lefty views. He sees me and some others here as one who simply wants to sweep things under the rug, hold hands and sing kumbaya. I know that can't change his mind because his posts demonstrate him as one who is solidified in his perspective no matter what.

However, to others (and Christopher if he wishes to hear) I want to reiterate that I am not interested in cheap reunification as he publically denounced his own sister in Christ of doing (in a "heterodox" forum on top of it), and quite harshly. I am not into reconciliation for the sake of good feelings. I am into reconciliation if indeed we are saying the same thing in different ways. I'm not an expert, but that's how things seem to me so far whenever I read up on this theological issue from both points of view.

Now, with that, I will say that I have always found the unwillingness to listen to what the other side has to say about their own beliefs to be unfair and intellectually dishonest, especially when we pull the "I was once in your camp" card, which has validity, but can be overused and overappreciated quickly. Some feel it gives them the liscense to insist whatever they want about their former "camp" and convincing them that their understanding may be off is many times pointless because this can quickly turn more into an issue of them proving to themselves that the reasons they left for are still good reasons. So, in short, it's a personal issue for them, that they are dealing publically. So, I look at this thread introspectively and realize that I might unintentionally approach, say, Lutheranism in a similar way, assuming myself an expert to the point that I understand their faith (that I left) better than they do. That may be true at times depending the individual or issue. But that isn't true for a discussion with ANY individual or issue... at least for me. So, it's a wake up call for me.
 
Upvote 0

JESUS<3sYOU

Sverige är bäst!
Jun 30, 2010
358
45
✟8,200.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
When non-Chalcedonians are allowed to go to communion in Orthodox churches, the understanding is supposed to be that they have converted to Orthodoxy, accept Chalcedon, and won't go back to a non-Chalcedonian church if one is nearby.
A priest explained to me that when there is no other proper alternative available in the area, Coptic Orthodox and Aethiopian Orthodox can commune with Orthodox (or "Eastern Orthodox") Christians (and still be what they already were, of course).

Unfortunately, some priests seem to understand this as, "We let them commune, end of story".
It was not intended by what said priest said.

I guess, however, that it's really up to the Bishop, eventually, since Bishop is the highest rank of Orthodox Christianity.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Joshua G.

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2009
3,288
419
U.S.A.
✟5,328.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
If non-Chalcedonians choose to go to an Orthodox Church and commune there, again, they are supposed to convert to Orthodoxy, and never go back to a non-Chalcedonian church even if one opens up next door. If they want to go to a non-Chalcedonian church once one becomes available, they can attend services but should never be allowed to receive any sacraments, not even the children.

This is why I don't like the confession/communion method of receiving converts: it leads to severe confusion on this point, even among priests.

You are probably technically right (in fact, I am sure you are). But for what it's worth, this is not the frame of mind many bishops act under when they have the unwritten rule of don't ask don't tell. That's the reality in many many jurisdictions. That doesn't make it right, but it is how it is.

Sometheologians have thought that, some. Many emphatically disagree. Unfortunately, the "they believe the same" camp has sort of snowballed from "Maybe they just misunderstood the council" to "We are actually one church divided". That is really dangerous, because the Church is never divided.
I see your point, for sure. However, I do have to say that I felt like the Church was pretty divided in the days when I was barred from communing with ROCOR by my Patriarch.

I agree the Church is never divided. However, it is totally possible for humans to put unnecessary barriers between themselves and other communities, SIMILAR (but not exactly the same as) when the MP did such with the ROCOR (I realize the difference is that there was a loophole as some jurisdictions in communion with my jurisdiction were in communion with the ROCOR. But still, I think this is a very silly set up and contradictory to what the Church SHOULD be like. that said, it seems that the ROCOR was always in part of the Church despite human/historical divisions.
 
Upvote 0
Y

Yeznik

Guest
If it was all just a mix up, then where was the Holy Spirit at the 4th Ecumenical Council...and what about the miracle of St Euphemia? If its all just a mix up, does that make the 4th Ecumenical council invalid? Just some thoughts...
The Armenian Church was not present at the Council of Chalcedon; the Armenians were defending Armenia against the Persians because the Persian King Yazdagert was trying to force Armenians back to Zoroastrianism. The battle is known as the Battle of Vartanantz. Due to turbulent times in Armenia it took nearly 50 years after the Council of Chalcedon for the Armenian bishops to gather and discuss the decrees which they later rejected.
So the fact that Saint Severus of Antioch, while still a lay person, anathematized Pope Peter III of Alexandria for accepting the Henotikon means nothing to you?
The general tradition regarding theological issues is resolved by a council of bishops. That doesn’t mean the bishops do not listen to what their constituents have to say. If I recall correctly, we can look to the example of Saint Athanasius, while a deacon, gave the apology against the Arians.
That all is nice, but you need to be aware that not all "EO" agree that non-Chalcedonian beliefs can be reconciled with Orthodoxy.
If there is a council, led by the Holy Spirit, between the EO and OO and a resolution is made according to the Will of God. Then those who oppose the decision, on either side, can be considered schematics.
We are the ones who would not pray with bishops who had signed such an agreement, but would retreat to the fields to pray there instead.
I am confused about the above post, are you stating that a group of EO bishops would not pray with the OCA for the statement made? Or they didn’t sign such a statement? Retreating out to the fields to pray is beautifully poetic, but this would need to be done before and during a council.
 
Upvote 0
Nov 5, 2010
266
18
California
✟7,982.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Hold on. Did you totally miss the error I was pointing out?

Saint Dioscorus was not the Patriarch of Constantinople. Ever.

He was the Patriarch of Alexandria.

Yeah...a Patriarch who was deposed 'cause he was in heresy,

Like I said, you have no resources which show that Saint Dioscorus was identified by the bishops at Chalcedon as being in heresy. And to the contrary, I could show you some of the bishops at Chalcedon claiming the opposite, that he was not condemned for heresy.

And he isn't a saint...

From an OO perspective he is indeed a Saint.

He was not personally mentioned in Chalcedon

What in the blazes?

Have you not even read the acts of Chalcedon?

He was indeed personally mentioned at the council!

How do you expect him to have been condemned and deposed if he wasn't personally mentioned?!

(a heresy which Dioscorus believed and followed)

Where do you get this idea?

But as I said previously, he was condemned right along with everyone else who follows Eutyches heresy in 475.

Again you show that you don't know what you're talking about. You don't actually know when the council you are referring to was. I referred to a council in Ephesus in 475, and you just assumed that it was the one that Eutyches was at and was addressed at Chalcedon, because you are ignorant. In fact, it would be impossible for this 475 council to have been addressed by Chalcedon, which was in 451! The council you are thinking of was in 449. There were three major councils of Ephesus, the first in 431, the second in 449, and the third in 475.
 
Upvote 0
Nov 5, 2010
266
18
California
✟7,982.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
So we condemned your definition first and you rejected ours.

Huh? Exactly what definition of ours did you first condemn?

But since we had the magic gavel then you are the one in schism. But if you had the gavel then we would be in schism.

No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that the key point of distinction in the schism was the rejection or acceptance of Chalcedon. And if Chalcedon was in fact perfectly loyally orthodox then we rejected it in vain and we are in the wrong.

However, I think in the end, it all proves to be silly because now we insist on seeing who was in schism.

Identifying who was/is the Church of Christ is very important, because it will decide who has to rejoin the Church and be initiated into it.

So, if we were to come together through reconciliation, it would be absolutely essential that you say sorry for having rejected what our council said.

If indeed the Council of Chalcedon was perfectly orthodox (which I do not admit), then yes, we would have to admit to its orthodoxy and profess it, and rejoin the Church.

But we're cool in having implicitly included you among the list of heretical groups.

I think in that scenario that it would be fair to uplift anathemas against us on account of heresy, but that is different because its truth or falsehood is not the deciding point on the identity of the Church.

I guess you're right. It's essential we know where to point the blame. That is really key to all of this.

Blame is not important. Rather, it is the reality that one of us must be the Church of Christ and the other apart from it, and we have to determine who will that so that we can determine who will be the party re-initiated into the Church.

there comes a point where we need to take our heads out of our ---s and say "look, what are we really still arguing about? Do you accept this? Do we accept you? Can we act like brothers now? good."

It's not that simple because one of us is the Church and the other needs to be initiated into the Church.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michael G

Abe Frohmann
Feb 22, 2004
33,441
11,984
50
Six-burgh, Pa
Visit site
✟95,591.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In some sense schism is better because schismatics remain closer in confession. However, in terms of the wickedness of the act, I would think that schism actually would generally be worse. Usually heretics are convinced that their deviant system of thought is actually the truth, and thus that they constitute the Church of Christ. Schismatics, on the other hand, usually break from the Church for much more self-serving and devious reasons.



Again, it is possible for schismatics to have a correct confession. However, to refer to them as Orthodox in a totally unqualified manner is somewhat misleading. On a mystical sense, I think it is safe to say that they do not have the fullness of the life of the Church as non-schismatic churches do.

I am sorry. I am going to listen to what my Orthodox Bishop tells me about schism vs. heresy and not listen to what some one who isn't even Eastern Orthodox has to say.
 
Upvote 0
Nov 5, 2010
266
18
California
✟7,982.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Chalcedon was able to synthesize what was legitmate in both the Alexandrian and Antiochian christological traditions.

And, IMO, some of what was illegitimate in the Antiochian tradition.

I think we owe a lot to the Patriarchate of Rome as a moderating influence in the debate too.

Hehe.

Pope Leo I is essentially one of the most despised figures in OOy, similar to the sort of venom I have been seeing against Saint Dioscoros in this thread.

So you won't get any agreement from me on him.
 
Upvote 0
Nov 5, 2010
266
18
California
✟7,982.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
By the way, I wanted to add to my little rant (that I still stand behind, at least in content, lol) that, of course, we would only need to do the bolded part if indeed we come to the point where we realize that we never truly disagreed in the past but rather misunderstood each other, rightly condemning heresies that neither of us actually stood for.

I don't agree. I think if we both finally admitted that both of us were perfectly orthodox in our confession all along (which I am not willing to do), then I think we would have to admit that the OO were schismatic. It would not have been right for us to have rejected Chalcedon if it had been perfectly orthodox. And breaking communion on the basis of rejecting a blameless orthodox council is effectively schism.

If tomorrow our Churches (EO and OO) decided that indeed we are one and open up to intercommunion (and therefore recognize each other as One Church), this would not be to my chagrin and I would gladly accept this without a second thought or doubt in the world.

That could not legitimately happen. For one thing, it is truly impossible for us to have been one Church before union. The Church is one communion. Either one of us is the Church or neither, not both. For another, I am 99% convinced that the Council of Chalcedon indeed compromised its doctrine with Nestorianism. As such, I would be joining dissident Oriental groups which had rejected the reunion, as they would be, IMO, the faithful remnant of the OOC.

Interestingly, I totally know how Mr. Dombrowski sees me and my lefty views. He sees me and some others here as one who simply wants to sweep things under the rug, hold hands and sing kumbaya.

Perhaps. I have seen far worse, though. False ecumenism is even more rampant in my church than in yours. I often find myself agreeing with the ecclesiology of a Byzantine sooner than an Oriental.

I know that can't change his mind because his posts demonstrate him as one who is solidified in his perspective no matter what.

Given my history I don't see how that could be. I've gone from being a non-religious atheist, to being a Buddhist, to being a non-denom Protestant, to being Eastern Orthodox, to now being Oriental Orthodox.

However, to others (and Christopher if he wishes to hear) I want to reiterate that I am not interested in cheap reunification as he publically denounced his own sister in Christ of doing (in a "heterodox" forum on top of it), and quite harshly.

What exactly do you have in mind?

I am not into reconciliation for the sake of good feelings. I am into reconciliation if indeed we are saying the same thing in different ways. I'm not an expert, but that's how things seem to me so far whenever I read up on this theological issue from both points of view.

Surprise:

We are by and large saying the same thing.

The foolishness of the current dialogue, however, is in assuming that that it is enough.

It is in assuming that just because we both have orthodox confessions now that we always have.

If the OO were truly more united in the opinion that you did not have a perfectly orthodox confession at Chalcedon, but do now, and thus can accept you if it does not involve confession of Chalcedon itself, I would be very pleased.

Unfortunately that is not the case.
 
Upvote 0
Nov 5, 2010
266
18
California
✟7,982.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
A priest explained to me that when there is no other proper alternative available in the area, Coptic Orthodox and Aethiopian Orthodox can commune with Orthodox (or "Eastern Orthodox") Christians (and still be what they already were, of course).

God forbid!

That's not how the Church works.

There is no point in partaking of the ordinances of those outside the Church, even in emergency situations.

And I can assure you that most EO Priests would never encourage anyone partake of the ordinances of a non-EO church. I can't understand why some don't apply the same reasoning in the reciprocal.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Christos Anesti

Junior Member
Oct 25, 2009
3,487
333
Michigan
✟20,114.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
I notice that a lot of the agreed upon statements between EO and OO focus on the issue of the nature/s of Christ but have there also been agreements on the issue of Christ having both a human and divine will ? Does miaphysitism imply a single theanthropic will or does it allow for both a human and a divine will in Christ?
 
Upvote 0