Can the EO & OO reunite without compromising their Christologies?

WanderedHome · May 16, 2020

*** For accuracy sake, please only vote in the poll if you are Eastern Orthodox. ***

I posted the same question on the OO forum.

I just want to see how many from both sides think we can reunite without compromising their positions on the nature of Christ.

ArmyMatt · May 16, 2020

they would have to formally accept Chalcedon and all subsequent councils, to include the condemnation of Severus of Antioch.

we wouldn't compromise, but they would have to.

dzheremi · May 16, 2020

Following Fr. Matt's reply, no. (I didn't vote in the poll.

)

Not David · May 16, 2020

ArmyMatt said:
they would have to formally accept Chalcedon and all subsequent councils, to include the condemnation of Severus of Antioch.

we wouldn't compromise, but they would have to.

What did Severus do?

Phronema · May 16, 2020

At the risk of inadvertently sounding like an ecumenist I was under the impression that after the discussions that took place during the 20th century between the EO, and OO Churches that in the past it was an issue of terminology, and originally a misunderstanding? That the Patriarchs had spoken about it over a period of years, and the differences in our Christology were minimal or non-existent?

Or am I entirely off the mark here?

Also, I didn't vote in the poll.

Phronema · May 16, 2020

It's a massive wall of text, but here's a pretty interesting read on it if anyone's into that sort of thing.

Beyond Dialogue: The Quest for Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Unity Today | St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary

E.C. · May 16, 2020

Yes, we can reunite without compromising Christ because Christ is too great to be compromised.

Yes, we can reunite without compromising our Christologies because the talks in the last hundred years or so have basically said that both the Diphysite and Miaphysite positions are correct, Orthodox, acceptable, etc.

However, where it gets messy is not only in administrative manners (there's two patriarchs of Alexandria and surely we wouldn't need two post-union any longer) but also in how we teach our history and how the laity accept each other. We've been erroneously calling each other Monophysites and Nestorians for the last 1500 or so years and that's not exactly an easy habit to break. As nicely as we seem to accept each other here in North America, the rest of the world may not necessarily be the case.

ArmyMatt · May 16, 2020

Not David said:
What did Severus do?

was condemned as a heretic by the Orthodox. to the non-Chalcedonians he is an extremely important saint.

Not David · May 16, 2020

ArmyMatt said:
was condemned as a heretic by the Orthodox. to the non-Chalcedonians he is an extremely important saint.

I mean, what did he promote?

ArmyMatt · May 16, 2020

Not David said:
I mean, what did he promote?

he was condemned for monoenergism, but it doesn't help that he rejected Chalcedon (if we have the same Christology, that should not be a problem).

Phronema · May 17, 2020

Phronema said:
It's a massive wall of text, but here's a pretty interesting read on it if anyone's into that sort of thing.

Beyond Dialogue: The Quest for Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Unity Today | St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary

For anyone who is curious as I was for more information from an Eastern Orthodox perspective on this here are some counter points from Mt. Athos on the issue.

I found it to be an interesting read personally.

Memorandum of the Sacred Community of Mount Athos Concerning the Dialogue Between the Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonian Churches

ArmyMatt · May 17, 2020

the problem is how can we not compromise and unite when both sides are opposing on Chalcedon, and that clearly deals with Christology?

Not David · May 17, 2020

ArmyMatt said:
the problem is how can we not compromise and unite when both sides are opposing on Chalcedon, and that clearly deals with Christology?

Is there something impossible for God, Father?

Phronema · May 18, 2020

ArmyMatt said:
the problem is how can we not compromise and unite when both sides are opposing on Chalcedon, and that clearly deals with Christology?

I understand exactly what you're saying. That refutation from Mt. Athos mentioned that as well. Truthfully prior to finding that I was under the impression that the discussions that were had were a lot more legitimate, and truly hashed out the theological differences, terminology, and understanding between the two churches. Unfortunately under a more thorough examination if even only a fairly quick one that's not been the case.

In fact here is an example of that ambiguity.

It's quite unfortunate, but as the monks said it'll need to be spoken about again, but more thoroughly.

ArmyMatt · May 18, 2020

Not David said:
Is there something impossible for God, Father?

yes, He cannot deny Himself. to deny our Christological differences is to deny Who He has revealed Himself to be. it also denies that either the Spirit was at work at Chalcedon or not.

ArmyMatt · May 18, 2020

Phronema said:
I understand exactly what you're saying. That refutation from Mt. Athos mentioned that as well. Truthfully prior to finding that I was under the impression that the discussions that were had were a lot more legitimate, and truly hashed out the theological differences, terminology, and understanding between the two churches. Unfortunately under a more thorough examination if even only a fairly quick one that's not been the case.

In fact here is an example of that ambiguity.

View attachment 277171

It's quite unfortunate, but as the monks said it'll need to be spoken about again, but more thoroughly.

well, the dialogues really have been, at least as far as I can see it, the OO admitting that Chalcedon wasn't really Nestorian after all.

Barney2.0 · May 18, 2020

I’ve been waiting to post this, but I’d didn’t know how since it’s a bit controversial, but this thread gave me the opportunity to do so. It’s a recent debate between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox:

The theology of Chalcedonian Eastern Orthodox and the Non Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox isn’t really the same when you actually look at it in detail. From my own exprience from listening to Coptic and Syriac clergy, they want nothing to do with Roman Catholics, Protestants (especially Protestants), or Eastern Orthodox so long as they hold to Chalcedon. Likewise I doubt the Eastern Orthodox will want to give up Chalcedon or accept communion from those who reject what is viewed as an Ecumenical and infallible Council by the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Copts and other Non Chalcedonians haven’t been comprimsed on anything regarding Chalcedon for more than 1400 years, so I don’t expect them to do so now. Also from what I’ve read and listened to the Oriental Orthodox, more specifically the Copts still view Chalcedon as being Nestorian in a way, although they do accept it could be interpreted in an Orthodox manner, the fact that it could be read in a Nestorian manner (obviously not how the Eastern Orthodox read Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo) is enough reason in their belief to reject the Council of Chalcedon and Leo’s Tome. So I see very little chance of any sort of a reunion without one side comprising atleast. some core parts of their belief.

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith · May 18, 2020

Bums me out man. I wish we were together officially.

.

Not David · May 19, 2020

Al Masihi said:
I’ve been waiting to post this, but I’d didn’t know how since it’s a bit controversial, but this thread gave me the opportunity to do so. It’s a recent debate between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox:

The theology of Chalcedonian Eastern Orthodox and the Non Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox isn’t really the same when you actually look at it in detail. From my own exprience from listening to Coptic and Syriac clergy, they want nothing to do with Roman Catholics, Protestants (especially Protestants), or Eastern Orthodox so long as they hold to Chalcedon. Likewise I doubt the Eastern Orthodox will want to give up Chalcedon or accept communion from those who reject what is viewed as an Ecumenical and infallible Council by the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Copts and other Non Chalcedonians haven’t been comprimsed on anything regarding Chalcedon for more than 1400 years, so I don’t expect them to do so now. Also from what I’ve read and listened to the Oriental Orthodox, more specifically the Copts still view Chalcedon as being Nestorian in a way, although they do accept it could be interpreted in an Orthodox manner, the fact that it could be read in a Nestorian manner (obviously not how the Eastern Orthodox read Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo) is enough reason in their belief to reject the Council of Chalcedon and Leo’s Tome. So I see very little chance of any sort of a reunion without one side comprising atleast. some core parts of their belief.

I mean, does it really matter how it can be interpreted? The Protestants interpret the Bible in millions of ways yet it is still Holy

ArmyMatt · May 19, 2020

Not David said:
I mean, does it really matter how it can be interpreted? The Protestants interpret the Bible in millions of ways yet it is still Holy

yes, because if it is an Ecumenical Council as we say, it must be accepted. if it's a robber council as they say, it must be rejected.

Can the EO & OO reunite without compromising their Christologies?

Can the EO/OO reunite without compromising Christ?

Yes

No

Active Member

Regular Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

I'm back!

Orthodox Christian

Orthodox Christian

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

I'm back!

Regular Member

Orthodox Christian

Regular Member

I'm back!

Orthodox Christian

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I'm back!

Regular Member

Similar threads