Effects of the Filioque?

[ArmyMatt]

Honestly- and many don't believe this - I found many things from the AoG beliefs that I could connect to Orthodoxy. A lot of things just made sense. Soteriology actually wasn't that tough to change (relatively...once I learned the language) - though I still struggle with some elements, especially in explaining it. We had the Holiness Wesleyan influence, which is synergistic. Anyways, we had lots of training to learn things like that - such the Our Fundamental Truths which draw from the Nicene Creed and the Nicene Creed itself. I'm not sure what it is like now ten years later, but we didn't reject all elements of the Church. We even used to celebrate Pentecost Sunday though I guess that makes a bit of sense. It was on the Church Calendar date for Pentecostal Sunday though.

I think @~Anastasia~ can also vouch for this.

I believe you, AOG is a many varied thing

 

[All4Christ]

I believe you, AOG is a many varied thing

True. I think it is getting even more varied. The curriculum in the classes has changed as well since I left.

That said, the official teaching of soteriology - especially in Bible study groups - still has many common elements to our doctrines. It is very interesting to learn the history of the Pentecostal Church to find some additional similarities. Often when I talk to people in their language (our concepts explained when possible in the terminology they use), they find that they understand our view much more than many Western Christians, especially in the Evangelical world.

The start of my journey to Orthodoxy was extensive learning about the history of the Pentecostal Church, which ironically led me to find that in what I was looking for in the Orthodox Church.

 

[buzuxi02]

In what way? It's by and large the longest of the so-called ecumenical creeds, and it explicitly defines and condemns views that are heretical, while clearly affirming the proper view (ignoring filioque).

The apostles creed on the other hand, that's much shorter and can be accepted by most non-trinitarian Christians. Maybe you're thinking of that?

The so-called Athanasius Creed is not considered an ecumenical creed in Orthodoxy. This creed states not to confound the Trinity, but ithe does just that. There is no clear indication in this creed that the hypostasis of the unoriginate Father is the sole cause and fountainhead of the entire Trinity. It over emphasizes the co-equality of the three hypostasis to the point it fails to show the Father as the sole source of the entire Trinity. Many non-trinitarian sects use the absurd way the Athanasian creed attempts to demonstrate the co-equality while at the same time trys to convince the three persons are still one. How many time's do they say 1+1+1=3? There is no need for mental gymnastics with the Nicene Creed as the opening article makes clear, "I believe in one God the Father almighy..." It then goes on to say that Christ is eternally begotten of God one in divine essence with Him as a Light (ray) from the Light (source) . The Athanasian Creed simply keeps saying they are three divine persons but not three gods without a clear explanation of the mechanism of the Godhead.


A Second strike against this creed is in its second part on its Christology. It was composed decades after Ephesus and yet makes no menton of either a Virgin birth nor Mary as the Theotokos. It even makes a nestorianizing statement: ..."Equal to the Father pertaining to his Godhead, inferior to the Father pertaining to his humanity...'' This poor phrasing is condemned by anathemas 3 & 4 of Ephesus.

 

[All4Christ]

The so-called Athanasius Creed is not considered an ecumenical creed in Orthodoxy. This creed states not to confound the Trinity, but ithe does just that. There is no clear indication in this creed that the hypostasis of the unoriginate Father is the sole cause and fountainhead of the entire Trinity. It over emphasizes the co-equality of the three hypostasis to the point it fails to show the Father as the sole source of the entire Trinity. Many non-trinitarian sects use the absurd way the Athanasian creed attempts to demonstrate the co-equality while at the same time trys to convince the three persons are still one. How many time's do they say 1+1+1=3? There is no need for mental gymnastics with the Nicene Creed as the opening article makes clear, "I believe in one God the Father almighy..." It then goes on to say that Christ is eternally begotten of God one in divine essence with Him as a Light (ray) from the Light (source) . The Athanasian Creed simply keeps saying they are three divine persons but not three gods without a clear explanation of the mechanism of the Godhead.


A Second strike against this creed is in its second part on its Christology. It was composed decades after Ephesus and yet makes no menton of either a Virgin birth nor Mary as the Theotokos. It even makes a nestorianizing statement: ..."Equal to the Father pertaining to his Godhead, inferior to the Father pertaining to his humanity...'' This poor phrasing is condemned by anathemas 3 & 4 of Ephesus.

Some Old Russian Psalters do include it for personal use though. It is not used in any services as far as I am aware.

 

[AMM]

The so-called Athanasius Creed is not considered an ecumenical creed in Orthodoxy. This creed states not to confound the Trinity, but ithe does just that. There is no clear indication in this creed that the hypostasis of the unoriginate Father is the sole cause and fountainhead of the entire Trinity. It over emphasizes the co-equality of the three hypostasis to the point it fails to show the Father as the sole source of the entire Trinity. Many non-trinitarian sects use the absurd way the Athanasian creed attempts to demonstrate the co-equality while at the same time trys to convince the three persons are still one. How many time's do they say 1+1+1=3? There is no need for mental gymnastics with the Nicene Creed as the opening article makes clear, "I believe in one God the Father almighy..." It then goes on to say that Christ is eternally begotten of God one in divine essence with Him as a Light (ray) from the Light (source) . The Athanasian Creed simply keeps saying they are three divine persons but not three gods without a clear explanation of the mechanism of the Godhead.


A Second strike against this creed is in its second part on its Christology. It was composed decades after Ephesus and yet makes no menton of either a Virgin birth nor Mary as the Theotokos. It even makes a nestorianizing statement: ..."Equal to the Father pertaining to his Godhead, inferior to the Father pertaining to his humanity...'' This poor phrasing is condemned by anathemas 3 & 4 of Ephesus.

I know it's not truly ecumenical, that's why I said it was a "so-called ecumenical creed."
And yes, about confounding the persons, hence my caveat about the filioque exception on the creed's orthodoxy.
Maybe it is absurd, but the concept of the Trinity doesn't make sense in the first place, so I don't think that's significant (but I'm also accustomed to the western view of the Trinity).

Christology: I see your point, but I interpret the wording in that section to be Chalcedonian rather than Nestorian.
(For the sake of full disclosure: if I convert, there's a good chance I'll go Oriental Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox because they have some good points: Chalcedon seems to go against those anathemas that you reference. For example, Chalcedonians say Christ God died according to his humanity. Orientals simply say that Christ died, etc.)

 

[ArmyMatt]

I know it's not truly ecumenical, that's why I said it was a "so-called ecumenical creed."
And yes, about confounding the persons, hence my caveat about the filioque exception on the creed's orthodoxy.
Maybe it is absurd, but the concept of the Trinity doesn't make sense in the first place, so I don't think that's significant (but I'm also accustomed to the western view of the Trinity).

Christology: I see your point, but I interpret the wording in that section to be Chalcedonian rather than Nestorian.
(For the sake of full disclosure: if I convert, there's a good chance I'll go Oriental Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox because they have some good points: Chalcedon seems to go against those anathemas that you reference. For example, Chalcedonians say Christ God died according to his humanity. Orientals simply say that Christ died, etc.)

it's also from the West, which from the beginning always had the singularity of God as their focus, which back in the day was not as much an issue, but became one after the Schism.

and for the sake of full disclosure, bear in mind that St Cyril himself, the champion of Ephesus, says that Christ did things according to His humanity and things according to His Divinity, so either Chalcedon is not incorrect, or St Cyril (among many other pre-Chalcedon saints) violated his own anathema....

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

My response to you gets its own post

What you're saying about the pope filling the role as the guide and guardian of truth is what I was referring to in the OP. The way you articulated it though is new and provides extra detail so thanks! That sorta lets me see the way this could be applied in protestantism...

What I'm thinking about specifically (and this isn't a fully fleshed out or developed thought) is the idea of sola scriptura. Now, I'm going to deal with the Lutheran view here, which is quite different from your normal protestant. But here's my train of thought:
We know that the Spirit is the guide and guardian of the truth (John 16:13, 2 Timothy 1:14). Therefore, we can also say that it is the Spirit who protects the Church from errors (Matthew 16:18, 1 Timothy 3:15). Luther (rightfully) saw errors in Rome during the 16th century. The pope was removed as the "undisputed guide, guardian and "Spirit of Truth"" as you put it, and so something was needed to fill in. Without a guide, how can we know what to believe? (NB: I realized after writing this that this is almost word for word what the Eunuch says in Acts 8:31 lol)
The answer to that was Scripture. How we understand the Logos is ultimately determined by, well, the Logos. We reject the council of florence which officially defines the Roman eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, so in theory we could still hold Orthodox beliefs on this, but because of the wording of the creed, I tend to think that we naturally assume that the Spirit proceeds in the same way from the Father as from the Son. So we in practice hold the Roman view, even if in theory we are ambiguous.
In any case, we have elevated the Logos above the Spirit because rather than trusting all the places where the Spirit has promised to work (through the Church, the Sacraments, and the Word), we only trust two of them (the Word and Sacraments). We elevate the Logos over the Spirit and thus supordinate the Spirit's role in preserving Christendom.
In other words, even if we don't dogmatize what "and the Son" means in the Nicene Creed, our other doctrines still lead to the error. The pope replaced the Holy Spirit (and the Church). We replaced the pope with Scripture. I'd still argue that we're better off than Rome in this case -- at least our final arbiter for doctrine is one of the ways the Spirit has promised to work and come to us, unlike the false idea of ex cathedra statements, infallibility of the pope, etc.

Does that sound correct or reasonable?

Of course, this still presents the problem of going against all the Church Father statements that seem to pretty clearly argue for Scripture alone (in the Lutheran understanding not the dreadful generic protestant view)... so again I'm at a slight impasse. (But twenty minutes ago when I first had these thoughts I realized for the first time, and actually articulated to myself that I just might be Orthodox and not Lutheran, which is a step beyond where I've been before (and am at this very instant lol) as a mere inquirer and someone with a like for orthodoxy)

Sorry for the long post

Yes, I would say Protestants generally substitute Scripture for the Pope--and therefore ultimately for Holy Spirit. I do find a lot of Protestant theology objectionable, including this, but I also understand it in the context of a reaction against the absolutely unacceptable behavior and doctrines of Rome.

Let me highlight the differences of our approach here, though. David of Thessaloniki and Basil the Fool are two examples of Orthodox saints who could never really exist in Protestantism, because they did things which were perhaps crazy by the world's standards, being guided by the Holy Spirit. Protestants would probably say, "Scripture doesn't say to do any of that." Well, in Orthodoxy, Scripture is ultimately authored by the Holy Spirit, and is a very holy work of instruction and rules, but it's also not meant to be a substitute for the Holy Spirit. We strongly believe that both the Church as a whole is guided by the Spirit, and also that individuals find their own, sometimes radical, calling through the Spirit. For instance, Catholics see monasticism as done for "extra credit"; in Orthodoxy, it is rather something done because the Spirit calls you. Not everyone is called to be a monk, not everyone is called to be married.

 

[buzuxi02]

Some Old Russian Psalters do include it for personal use though. It is not used in any services as far as I am aware.

It was introduced in about the 12th century without the Filioque. Unfortunately it still violates a number of pan-Orthodox councils which recognizes the Nicene Creed as sufficient.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It was introduced in about the 12th century without the Filioque. Unfortunately it still violates a number of pan-Orthodox councils which recognizes the Nicene Creed as sufficient.

it would only violate them if it replaced the Nicene Creed as the Creed of the Church. simply having it for personal devotion and prayer violates nothing

 

[ArmyMatt]

For example, Chalcedonians say Christ God died according to his humanity. Orientals simply say that Christ died, etc.)

I would also add that these two statements are not mutually exclusive, since in both cases Christ is the one dying. the first guards against the heresy of Monophysitism, the second guards against the heresy of Nestorius. both statements Chalcedonians say all the time.

 

[AMM]

I would also add that these two statements are not mutually exclusive, since in both cases Christ is the one dying. the first guards against the heresy of Monophysitism, the second guards against the heresy of Nestorius. both statements Chalcedonians say all the time.

That's a good point; thanks. I guess I need to read more on Chalcedon before I come to that decision (but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it), since apparently I'm not nearly as educated on it as I thought. Cyril's Unity of Christ is on my to-read list soon.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's a good point; thanks. I guess I need to read more on Chalcedon before I come to that decision (but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it), since apparently I'm not nearly as educated on it as I thought. Cyril's Unity of Christ is on my to-read list soon.

yep, also context is key with Ephesus and Chalcedon, and I would add the Formula of Reunion after Ephesus

 

[buzuxi02]

it would only violate them if it replaced the Nicene Creed as the Creed of the Church. simply having it for personal devotion and prayer violates nothing

I am not too sure about that. I believe this Creed is highly deficient. During the Definition for the 4th council at Chalcedon this was read

This wise and salutary formula of divine grace sufficed for the perfect knowledge and confirmation of religion; for it teaches the perfect [doctrine] concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and sets forth the Incarnation of the Lord to them that faithfully receive it. But, forasmuch as persons undertaking to make void the preaching of the truth have through their individual heresies given rise to empty babblings; some of them daring to corrupt the mystery of the Lord's incarnation for us and refusing [to use] the name Mother of God ( Qeotokos ) in reference to the Virgin, while others, bringing in a confusion and mixture, and idly conceiving that the nature of the flesh and of the Godhead is all one, maintaining that the divine Nature of the Only Begotten is, by mixture, capable of suffering; therefore this present holy, great, and ecumenical synod, desiring to exclude every device against the Truth, and teaching that which is unchanged from the beginning, has at the very outset decreed that the faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers shall be preserved inviolate. And on account of them that contend against the Holy Ghost, it confirms the doctrine afterwards delivered concerning the substance of the Spirit by the One Hundred and Fifty holy Fathers who assembled in the imperial City; which doctrine they declared unto all men, not as though they were introducing anything that had been lacking in their predecessors, but in order to explain through written documents their faith concerning the Holy Ghost against those who were seeking to destroy his sovereignty....

These things, therefore, having been expressed by us with the greatest accuracy and attention, the holy Ecumenical Synod defines that no one shall be suffered to bring forward a different faith, nor to write, nor to put together, nor to excogitate, nor to teach it to others. But such as dare either to put together another faith, or to bring forward or to teach or to deliver a different Creed ( eteron sumbolon ) to as wish to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles, or Jews or any heresy whatever, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, and the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laics: let them be anathematized.

: From the above underlined statements we can see how the Athanasian creed written decades AFTER Chalcedon refuses to call Mary both Theotokos and Virgin Mary. The original Athanasian creed also violates the second underlined confession, it has always contained the fillioque which Chalcedon condemns as destroying the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit, likewise it makes clear to bring forth no other creed.
Its extremely odd thing is the Athanasian Creed simply says, "That our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man...Man of the substance of His Mother, born in the world"....

Pretty lackluster for something devised at about 500 AD. The Nicene Creed explicitly links the Virgin Mother and the Holy Spirit as agents of the incarnation while both Ephesus and Chalcedon acknowledges the Christological title of Theotokos. Completely left out in this creed something Chalcedon has a problem with. We can also see how non-trinitarian western sects including Islam will find the Trinity as illogical and something that defies reason when the Athanasian creed explains the Trinity in this manner:

' For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord.'

:This is a far cry from the Nicene Creed which establishes God the Father as the only fountainhead for the entire Trinity while referencing the Son and Holy Spirit as 'Lord' while omitting the 'Lord' usage for the Father Himself. The Filioque then further establishes two causalities for the Holy Spirit making the third person subnumerical in rank, not as St Basil explained the third person is con-numerically in order not sub-numerically third in rank.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I am not too sure about that. I believe this Creed is highly deficient. During the Definition for the 4th council at Chalcedon this was read

This wise and salutary formula of divine grace sufficed for the perfect knowledge and confirmation of religion; for it teaches the perfect [doctrine] concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and sets forth the Incarnation of the Lord to them that faithfully receive it. But, forasmuch as persons undertaking to make void the preaching of the truth have through their individual heresies given rise to empty babblings; some of them daring to corrupt the mystery of the Lord's incarnation for us and refusing [to use] the name Mother of God ( Qeotokos ) in reference to the Virgin, while others, bringing in a confusion and mixture, and idly conceiving that the nature of the flesh and of the Godhead is all one, maintaining that the divine Nature of the Only Begotten is, by mixture, capable of suffering; therefore this present holy, great, and ecumenical synod, desiring to exclude every device against the Truth, and teaching that which is unchanged from the beginning, has at the very outset decreed that the faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers shall be preserved inviolate. And on account of them that contend against the Holy Ghost, it confirms the doctrine afterwards delivered concerning the substance of the Spirit by the One Hundred and Fifty holy Fathers who assembled in the imperial City; which doctrine they declared unto all men, not as though they were introducing anything that had been lacking in their predecessors, but in order to explain through written documents their faith concerning the Holy Ghost against those who were seeking to destroy his sovereignty....

These things, therefore, having been expressed by us with the greatest accuracy and attention, the holy Ecumenical Synod defines that no one shall be suffered to bring forward a different faith, nor to write, nor to put together, nor to excogitate, nor to teach it to others. But such as dare either to put together another faith, or to bring forward or to teach or to deliver a different Creed ( eteron sumbolon ) to as wish to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles, or Jews or any heresy whatever, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, and the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laics: let them be anathematized.

: From the above underlined statements we can see how the Athanasian creed written decades AFTER Chalcedon refuses to call Mary both Theotokos and Virgin Mary. The original Athanasian creed also violates the second underlined confession, it has always contained the fillioque which Chalcedon condemns as destroying the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit, likewise it makes clear to bring forth no other creed.
Its extremely odd thing is the Athanasian Creed simply says, "That our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man...Man of the substance of His Mother, born in the world"....

Pretty lackluster for something devised at about 500 AD. The Nicene Creed explicitly links the Virgin Mother and the Holy Spirit as agents of the incarnation while both Ephesus and Chalcedon acknowledges the Christological title of Theotokos. Completely left out in this creed something Chalcedon has a problem with. We can also see how non-trinitarian western sects including Islam will find the Trinity as illogical and something that defies reason when the Athanasian creed explains the Trinity in this manner:

' For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord.'

:This is a far cry from the Nicene Creed which establishes God the Father as the only fountainhead for the entire Trinity while referencing the Son and Holy Spirit as 'Lord' while omitting the 'Lord' usage for the Father Himself. The Filioque then further establishes two causalities for the Holy Spirit making the third person subnumerical in rank, not as St Basil explained the third person is con-numerically in order not sub-numerically third in rank.

hence me saying it is not, and never should be the Creed of the Church. as in, not something rubber stamped for all to believe in, but something for personal reflection. and, the NPNF, which was made by Protestants, says that the east only never accepted the Filioque portion.

and a lot of Creeds in the early days did not mention specifically that the Father is the source of the Trinity or the Incarnation. so it does not violate anything in Chalcedon.

 

[fat wee robin]

Indeed! In fact all the Popes resisted the insertion of tha Filioque in the Creed up until 1009. In that year the first Frankish Pope was elected. Coincidence?!

Who was the first Frankish pope ?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I know it's not truly ecumenical, that's why I said it was a "so-called ecumenical creed."
And yes, about confounding the persons, hence my caveat about the filioque exception on the creed's orthodoxy.
Maybe it is absurd, but the concept of the Trinity doesn't make sense in the first place, so I don't think that's significant (but I'm also accustomed to the western view of the Trinity).

Christology: I see your point, but I interpret the wording in that section to be Chalcedonian rather than Nestorian.
(For the sake of full disclosure: if I convert, there's a good chance I'll go Oriental Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox because they have some good points: Chalcedon seems to go against those anathemas that you reference. For example, Chalcedonians say Christ God died according to his humanity. Orientals simply say that Christ died, etc.)

This is an Eastern Orthodox liturgical hymn (and remember, our liturgical hymns are considered dogmatically binding):

As you can see, or rather hear, our Christology is the same as the Oriental Orthodox.

We say the Word died according to His humanity, yes. But we also say he was born according to His humanity, yet we still call Mary the Theotokos.

Anyway, I don't consider Oriental Orthodox to be really different from us, so I don't care to dissuade you. They will most likely tell you the same thing, that they and us are mostly on the same page. If you go Oriental Orthodox, most Eastern Orthodox parishes will still be happy to offer you Communion, and Oriental Orthodox, particularly Copts and Ethiopians, are generally just as happy to Commune Eastern Orthodox.

The point of make a distinction in natures was to protect against Eutychianism, which was a major problem back then, including among the Copts. Many Euthychians were tricky about it too, not overt, and that's why they had to be so bluntly dealt with.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Not to be disagreeable, but intercommunion is a touchy point, and from people I've talked to, very much depends on where you live.

Officially we are not supposed to offer or receive the Eucharist in one another's communion, under normal circumstances.

I say that more to make the point of "official" position, and to say to be VERY careful who you speak to and what you say about it. It can really upset people on both sides and of both theological opinions.

 

[prodromos]

Not to be disagreeable, but intercommunion is a touchy point, and from people I've talked to, very much depends on where you live.

Officially we are not supposed to offer or receive the Eucharist in one another's communion, under normal circumstances.

I say that more to make the point of "official" position, and to say to be VERY careful who you speak to and what you say about it. It can really upset people on both sides and of both theological opinions.

In the Greek parish in Cairns, northern Queensland in Australia, there are Greeks, Russians, Serbs and Ethiopians. The Ethiopian children commune because Father baptised them, but their parents do not commune.

 

[~Anastasia~]

In the Greek parish in Cairns, northern Queensland in Australia, there are Greeks, Russians, Serbs and Ethiopians. The Ethiopian children commune because Father baptised them, but their parents do not commune.

Interesting.

I know of similar situations.

I also know of people who live in countries where the churches are side by side, and I am told intercommunion is fairly common and accepted there. I know of other places where it happens with no big fuss. And then I know of places where it is strictly not done.

I spoke with a young man who came from an area of common intercommunion (he was Oriental Orthodox) and moved to the US to a strict area, then met and wanted to marry an Eastern Orthodox woman who was not really inclined to accept the realities of not sharing communion. They ended up breaking up the engagement because neither would convert and couldn't share communion, but he was understandably upset by the situation.

 

[ArmyMatt]

This is an Eastern Orthodox liturgical hymn (and remember, our liturgical hymns are considered dogmatically binding):

As you can see, or rather hear, our Christology is the same as the Oriental Orthodox.

We say the Word died according to His humanity, yes. But we also say he was born according to His humanity, yet we still call Mary the Theotokos.

Anyway, I don't consider Oriental Orthodox to be really different from us, so I don't care to dissuade you. They will most likely tell you the same thing, that they and us are mostly on the same page. If you go Oriental Orthodox, most Eastern Orthodox parishes will still be happy to offer you Communion, and Oriental Orthodox, particularly Copts and Ethiopians, are generally just as happy to Commune Eastern Orthodox.

The point of make a distinction in natures was to protect against Eutychianism, which was a major problem back then, including among the Copts. Many Euthychians were tricky about it too, not overt, and that's why they had to be so bluntly dealt with.

I'd be careful here. most jurisdictions I know do not offer the OO the sacraments. in seminary we were taught their Christology leaves the door open for heresy (and we have some OO students). and while many do sound like us, there are some voices out there who are not. jckstraw quoted a Malankar priest who said the will is an aspect of Person, and not of nature, which is heretical.