Ethiopian Orthodox church

[ArmyMatt]

Any comments about racism and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church are based in ignorance of history and Orthodoxy.

St Moses the Ethiopian and St Matthew who evangelized the Ethiopians think that any talk about race being a factor is silly.

 

[lankyknight1990]

We are not heretics. Stop referring to us as such, if you wish to use a term Call us Schismatic.

 

[Antony in Tx]

I want to clarify that my previous comment did not indicate agreement with calling OO's heretical. I happen to think that we are very close to being in communion soon and think the Oriental Orthodox as being as close to EO as anybody is in terms of overall agreement. I think that language and history are what divides us, not our beliefs as such.

 

[Andrew21091]

We are not heretics. Stop referring to us as such, if you wish to use a term Call us Schismatic.

Well, some will argue this. Many believe that the Oriental Orthodox do ascribe to the Monophysite heresy and therefore are heretics. I don't agree with that but that is what many people think. I've heard Oriental Orthodox say that we are heretics and call us Nestorians. Whatever, it is a lack of understanding or ignorance perhaps.

 

[LinuxLurker01]

We are not heretics. Stop referring to us as such, if you wish to use a term Call us Schismatic.

Is one really better than the other?

 

[Michael G]

Is one really better than the other?

Yes, actually schism is far better than heresy. Schism just means that the group at hand has broken ties with canonical Orthodoxy but still holds on to the true faith. Heresy means the group at hand has broken the true faith by adding to or subtracting from it.

To put it as my bishop explained it to me when I asked him about working with non-Canonical Orthodox groups in May 2010: The question is not about canonical vs. non-canonical. The question is whether or not the group is Orthodox. If they are Orthodox then it might just be a matter they have divorced themselves from the Church for one reason or another. These things can be healed over time and often are, and we can work with these groups. But if the group is not Orthodox, then we can not work with them.

(NOTE: His Gace had a very specific definition of working with a group in mind here, but that definition is completely irrelevant to this discussion).

 

[LinuxLurker01]

How can you claim to hold to the true faith if you've broken ties with the Church that is the keeper of that faith? That doesn't make sense to me. I was told schism is just as bad as heresy (by a priest).

Not trying to be argumentative, but I've never heard your position before. Then again, I'm not much of an expert on anything, so I could be (and likely am ) wrong.

 

[JESUS<3sYOU]

How can you claim to hold to the true faith if you've broken ties with the Church that is the keeper of that faith? That doesn't make sense to me. I was told schism is just as bad as heresy (by a priest).

Not trying to be argumentative, but I've never heard your position before. Then again, I'm not much of an expert on anything, so I could be (and likely am ) wrong.

I heard it from a priest that there is a difference. Furthermore I know that some have argued that the idea that it is membership in an organisation that keeps you away from heresy is papistic and in disagreement with Orthodox teaching for the reason that the highest rank in the Orthodox Church is bishop and also because the true Church is the same and there in its fullness wherever it is. In other words, if your bishop or your priest teaches heresy or subjects you to heretic practice, you as an Orthodox Christian should depart from there. I'm only recapitulating what I read, but it makes sense. See Against False Union by Alexandre Kalomiros.

Concerning the Copts and the Aethiopian Orthodox Church I heard it from another priest that they are indeed only schismatic. He explained that what happened was that another Ecumenical Council was held in Chalcedon, and the Copts were not present. Their absence was not a statement against anything that was said there, but rather they were simply not there for one reason or another, as it may be, but there was not necessarily any intention as far as we know to create schism.

(Note to self: Your previous post was deleted, see "Mod hat" note, above.)

 

[Michael G]

How can you claim to hold to the true faith if you've broken ties with the Church that is the keeper of that faith? That doesn't make sense to me. I was told schism is just as bad as heresy (by a priest).

Not trying to be argumentative, but I've never heard your position before. Then again, I'm not much of an expert on anything, so I could be (and likely am ) wrong.

This was the explanation to me about why I am able to work with Greek Old Calendarist monks (note, but not receive the Eucharist from them) in my studies. This explanation was given to me by an Orthodox Bishop. I think I will go with what Vladyka has to say.

Schism can be healed much more easily than heresy.

 

[LinuxLurker01]

This explanation was given to me by an Orthodox Bishop. I think I will go with what Vladyka has to say.

Wasn't suggesting otherwise, sir.

 

[ArmyMatt]

We are not heretics. Stop referring to us as such, if you wish to use a term Call us Schismatic.

that is up for debate because from our point of view, the body that you are in left the True Body of Christ, which is heresy. there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and either we are it and you are in heresy, you are it and we are in heresy, or we are both in heresy.

 

[Joshua G.]

Does this seem silly to anyone else?

 

[Damaris]

How can you claim to hold to the true faith if you've broken ties with the Church that is the keeper of that faith? That doesn't make sense to me. I was told schism is just as bad as heresy (by a priest).

Not trying to be argumentative, but I've never heard your position before. Then again, I'm not much of an expert on anything, so I could be (and likely am ) wrong.

The priest is referencing St. John Chrysostom, who is quoted as saying that schism is just as bad as heresy, and is also quoted as saying that schism is worse than heresy.

I like to reference quotations and am working on digging up more specific information, but unfortunately I'm without access to my library.

 

[lankyknight1990]

that is up for debate because from our point of view, the body that you are in left the True Body of Christ, which is heresy. there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and either we are it and you are in heresy, you are it and we are in heresy, or we are both in heresy.

And with thinking like that we will never be reuinited. The fact is the EO are not nestorians and never have be, and the OO and not Monophysites and never have been. It was a political issue that God blown massively out of context.

As for who is in schism, I dont think it matters, We could go on name calling for years, What is important is that we should reunite and just live in peace.

PS Being a heretic is much worse then being in Schism.

 

[Yeznik]

that is up for debate because from our point of view, the body that you are in left the True Body of Christ, which is heresy. there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and either we are it and you are in heresy, you are it and we are in heresy, or we are both in heresy.

1) The debate is to be decided by the council of bishops, not you, me or anyone else individually.

2) Here is the following statement from the OCA specifically in regards to the Armenian Church, which is an OOC:

"In recent times intense dialogue has been undertaken by the Orthodox and Oriental churches to ascertain prospects for reunion. While in general principle it is agreed that the doctrine of Christ as confessed by the Oriental churches is indeed Orthodox, definitive steps to restore communion have yet to be undertaken. "

OCA - Q & A - Armenian Apostolic Church

3) It is better for the OO and EO to spend time learning from each and praying for resolution.

 

[Damaris]

1) The debate is to be decided by the council of bishops, not you, me or anyone else individually.

2) Here is the following statement from the OCA specifically in regards to the Armenian Church, which is an OOC:

"In recent times intense dialogue has been undertaken by the Orthodox and Oriental churches to ascertain prospects for reunion. While in general principle it is agreed that the doctrine of Christ as confessed by the Oriental churches is indeed Orthodox, definitive steps to restore communion have yet to be undertaken. "

OCA - Q & A - Armenian Apostolic Church

3) It is better for the OO and EO to spend time learning from each and praying for resolution.

That all is nice, but you need to be aware that not all "EO" agree that non-Chalcedonian beliefs can be reconciled with Orthodoxy. 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.

 

[ikonographics]

As I understand it, the OO's pretty much believe as we do, and that there was some mix up w/ the language or whatever eons ago. I don't consider them heretics personally seeing how an Ethopian Orthodox family comes to our church sometimes and their daughter receives communion at our church.

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...

 

[RobNJ]

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...

QFT

 

[Joshua G.]

In the end, we look for a Council to define the Faith given to us and ward off heresy. We don't look to a Council to be infallible in all things like the weather or even an individual's soul. Just because a council errors in some historical fact in no way lessens the fact that belief X equals heresy.

IF the Church we belong to comes to conclusion that, indeed, the non-chalcedonians were and are not monophysites but rather miaphysites (and there is a difference) and that miaphysitism, while perhaps not the ideal explanation (from our cultural point of view or even from the point of view of human logic... I am saying this for argument's sake), is not heretical AND IF the non-chalcedonians equally admit that there was a misunderstanding on their side of what was being set forth in the council of Chalcedon and that, indeed, we are and never were Nestorians (is that what they accused us of? I forget.) and IF the can accept that the following 4 councils they were not part of were not in error in matters of teaching doctrine (even if they reserve the right to say they were mistaken on some historical accounts, e.g. some men anathematized)-- this last one assumes we are letting bygones be bygones on this THEN it seems that we are both saying that at no time was either body in heresy and so with that said, how can we say in such a situation that they were not part of the Church. IF all of that above is true (that neither side was wrong, but that there was some cultural misunderstanding involved) then it would seen we had always been one Church, just failing to realize it within history.

Now, it's totally possible that they were, as a Church Body, in heresy and then came around or that they still are in heresy (I'm not pursuaded at this time by the latter but... I'm not expert), which in either case would mean that they are in need of being brought back into the fold.

But, if indeed we gather and decide together that misunderstanding was a part of this council (not of doctrine or what was right, but of each other) and played the main role in our division, then it would seem that our division was rather imagined than anything real in the mind of God. It's a possibility and in no way does that undermine what the Council was meant to do... to thwart off heresy. It did that. monophysitism as described by the Coucnil is a heresy and that cannot ever be denied.

Josh

 

[Dorothea]

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...

I understand that, Julia. I'm speaking from my own feelings. I feel the OOC are truly close to us the EOC. We allow OO's to partake of the Holy Eucharist. I would think we're not that divided.