Search results

As us oriental orthodox are not allowed to debate in this area, all I can recommend is that you follow the church apostolic fathers, and follow the conclusion you reach.

Of course it's a moot point. I stated my position, not that of the Church.

Yes but as the Oriental Orthodox Church doesn't accept the councils nor the anathemas it is a moot point.

Mate 'in two natures' isn't just grammatically correct, it's completely and utterly orthodox. To refuse to acknowledge 'in two natures' as orthodox is a serious offence, and if one believes in two natures is heresy, they themselves are heterodox. I myself am miaphysite, as that's how the unity...

I think that the fundamental difference between me at you Matt is that I believe a council can error in declaring anathemas. And from what I have read over the years as an oriental orthodox Christian, many Eastern Orthodox also do not consider councils to be infallible. For me personally...

Something cannot go from not being heretical to heretical

The church would declare him as heretic of intolerance was at such a high level that complete dialogue broke down. Up until the 20th century the Eastern Orthodox considered us to be monophysites. Now, we are largely considered to be orthodox in christology but in schism for rejecting chalcedon...

One possible action I see as a posibility for reunion would be the oriental orthodox accepting Chalcedon, and all subsequent councils, in exchange a reunified church would lift the anathemas against oriental orthodox saints, and would also list the anathemas against Eastern Orthodox saints.

I am unusual when it comes to oriental orthodox. However there are others who agree with me that the tome of St Leo is orthodox. My point as to why I'm not Eastern Orthodox is that I am orthodox already and see no point in repeating sacraments. I pray that the schism between oriental and Eastern...

The EO should not give up on chalcedon. I believe the oriental orthodox should accept 'in two natures' as being orthodox and accept the tome of St Leo.

If he believes Christ only is divine he is a heretic.

He is a st. St Leo the great. But I do have a question for you. Do you believe everything that the holy councils said it infallible?

It's why I give diaphysitism merit. When explaining how the union happened, sometimes diaphysitism makes more sense and it easier to explain. But we must remember, not even the holy fathers were infallible. But given the oriental orthodox extreme (to a fault actually) anything Nestorian, it is...

Also I am oriental orthodox, but I don't believe anyone should drop anything. Chalcedon is orthodox, as is her definitions. But I am rather unusual for an oriental. I've even told my priest that we should just accept Chalcedon to end the schism. But we ain't gonna anathematise our fathers. Nor...

St Severus is not a Nestorian. That's absolute nonsense. If you are gonna call him a heretic, Monophysite is what he was accused of.

Has fr Anthony message actually preached heresy though? Whilst I'm not a big fan of him, it's a big stretch to suggest he is protestant.

Cessationism is not the position of Orthodoxy. But the Charismatic Movement is rejected by orthodoxy also. The notion that we need to feel and be empowered by the Holy Spirit is the complete opposite of what the apostolic fathers teach us. Orthodoxy also flatly rejects emotionalism worship...

From an oriental perspective Chalcedon was too open with definitions, and it took another 2 councils to further define things. By the time is was resolved, the schism was permanent

Also, I generalise a lot so please forgive me for that. My wife says I make a lot of big calls, but better to make a big call then to not even try I say.

How does this forum feel about discussion between oriental Eastern Orthodoxy? Specifically Chalcedon.