- Apr 6, 2018
- 7,356
- 5,235
- 25
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
What's the difference with the Oriental Orthodox?
What's the difference with the Oriental Orthodox?
Thanks, I was talking about the Coptics who are in communion with Rome though.They are non-Chalcedonian, meaning they do not accept the Council of Chalcedon. Oddly, the Council of Chalcedon rejected the teachings of Nestorius, but those who rejected the Council did so because they thought the Council was too Nestorian. Go figure.
The schism between the Oriental Churches and the orthodox Churches is due mostly to differences in language. They all agree in principle, but it's difficult to translate the canons of the Council into other languages. Dyophisitism doesn't translate well into Syriac.
What's the difference with the Oriental Orthodox?
They are non-Chalcedonian, meaning they do not accept the Council of Chalcedon. Oddly, the Council of Chalcedon rejected the teachings of Nestorius, but those who rejected the Council did so because they thought the Council was too Nestorian. Go figure.
The schism between the Oriental Churches and the orthodox Churches is due mostly to differences in language. They all agree in principle, but it's difficult to translate the canons of the Council into other languages. Dyophisitism doesn't translate well into Syriac.
They are non-Chalcedonian, meaning they do not accept the Council of Chalcedon. Oddly, the Council of Chalcedon rejected the teachings of Nestorius, but those who rejected the Council did so because they thought the Council was too Nestorian. Go figure.
The schism between the Oriental Churches and the orthodox Churches is due mostly to differences in language. They all agree in principle, but it's difficult to translate the canons of the Council into other languages. Dyophisitism doesn't translate well into Syriac.
Aren’t the Coptic Orthodox part of Oriental Orthodoxy, and Coptic Catholics a separate entity in communion with Rome, much like other Eastern Catholic rites?
(Please correct me if I am wrong - I put the question mark because I am unsure.)
Also, kind of a fake union since they claimed to be Orthodox in communion with Rome which is a paradox because either they accept Rome's dogmas or they don't and they are tricking the Roman Catholics.Coptic Catholics are such a small group maybe 2 parishes. Their existence is a reflection of the arrogance of Rome. They have installed a Coptic catholic Patriarch of Alexandria based Abraham Sidrak for this inposter sect.
What innovations if I might ask?Yes. The relationship of the Coptic Catholics to Coptic Orthodoxy or the rest of Oriental Orthodoxy is, I would imagine, exactly the same as that of the various Byzantine Catholics to their Eastern Orthodox mother churches; they have accepted Rome's innovations in theology, ecclesiology, and so on, and hence are not a part of Orthodoxy anymore, but a part of Rome. They are a separate church.
Believe me I have nothing against my "desert cousins". The Oriental Churches have lived on the frontiers of Christianity for two thousand years now.
What innovations if I might ask?
The biggest difference is obviously our 100+ years of separation. However theologically I personally think there is still much that would keep the two from uniting
For instance if you look at Coptic Icons of Christ you can often see Christ blessing with one finger instead of two crossed. This is a distinction of monophysetic theology.
In my opinion experience speaking to copts, there is more varience in belief due to less dogma being developed over the centuries and a few less councils. Copts do not focus as much on Icons as we do die to no 7th council.
No offense to our Coptic friend here but I still find monophysism to be dangerous.
You can get fee different results coming close to either Christilogical modalism where Christ switches between his divine and human natures, or that he is a separate being or species because of the lack of hypostatia in relation to his union. This would make theosis quite different. There are writers much better than I on explaining the differences between monophysism and diophysism, but I think the beliefs that originally split us are still there.
No. That is not the case. Many of our honored and holy fathers (distinctly OO saints, like HH Mor Severus of Antioch) wrote in Greek, and Greek is a perfectly fine language in which to express anti-Chalcedonianism, and remained so for many centuries after the schism until it was mostly replaced by other languages. For an academic-level reference on this (though it mostly concerns the Copts in particular), please see Maged S.A. Mikhail From Byzantine to Islamic Egypt.
Additionally, Syriac was the language of the Chalcedonians in many regions, as evidenced by the manuscripts you can find in the Holy Land and Egypt written in this language belonging to the Chalcedonian Church, and the fact that the distinctly Chalcedonian variety of Aramaic -- called variously in the linguistic literature Christian Palestinian Aramaic or Melkite Aramaic -- is attested to from about the 5th century AD to the 13th century. Even the word 'Melkite' (used at the time to mean "adherent to Chalcedonianism", not the later distinct Greek Catholic Melkite church) itself comes from the Syriac malkoyo (ܡܠܟܝܐ), meaning 'imperial, royal', because it was applied as a slur towards those Syriacs who had adopted the Chalcedonian confession by the people who also spoke that language who did not adopt that confession.
On paper, they have to accept Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, the authority of the Roman Magisterium, Purgatory, Filioque, the Council of Chalcedon and the subsequent Ecumenical Councils of Rome, the Immaculate Conception, Augustinian and specific scholastic interpretations of Original Sin - the Sacraments and Sacramentals - Grace - Salvation - the Beatific Vision - etc.What innovations if I might ask?
While this is 100% true, different regions (and different time periods) of Christendom used the same words to mean different things in Greek.
Saint Cyril of Alexandria and Eutyches both used "one nature of the Word" to mean two different things, and Saint John Cassian and Nestorius used "in two natures" to mean two different things.
This makes looking at the texts of the Church Fathers a pain by the way.
Yes. This underlines my overall point that it was not a difference in language, as the poster was suggesting, but a difference in meaning/understanding/philosophical and hence theological tradition(s).